Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
RAMESH AND OTHERS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2014
Decided On : 22-11-2016
(1961) 3 SCR 120; (2012) 4 SCC 722 – Relied upon
(b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – A dying declaration is an independent piece of evidence – Can be acted upon without corroboration if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable – Instantly dying statement recorded by a competent Magistrate having no animosity with anyone – Doctor certifying about her fit state of mind to record statement – Trial court not giving reasons for disbelieving the dying declaration or the certificate of attending doctor or the Magistrate recording the statement – Approach of trial court legally unsustainable. (Para 27, 28, 30)
(1999) 8 SCC 161; (2002) 8 SCC 83; 1958 SCR 552; (2008) 2 SCC 516 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Trial court disbelieving dying declaration relying on statement of PW4 that the appellant was with him at the time of incident and had reached hospital when the deceased was already there – Hospital records showing that it was the appellant who brought deceased to hospital – Trial court committing serious error – High Court rightly appreciated the evidence. (Para 34)
(d) Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence – Witnesses turning hostile – Reasons analysed – Witness identity protection and witness protection programmes – 'Culture of compromise' – Menace needs to be tackled. (Para 40, 41, 44, 46)
(2002) 6 SCC 81; (2006) 3 SCC 374; (2004) 5 SCC 518; (2012) 8 SCC 450 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellants were tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302, 34, 498A of Indian Penal Code.
The High Court, in appeal, has overturned the verdict of acquittal, thereby convicting all the four accused persons (appellants herein).
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The legal document discusses the principles governing the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, particularly focusing on the credibility and reliability of dying declarations and witness testimonies. It emphasizes that a judgment of acquittal by the trial court is given significant weight and should not be lightly overturned unless found to be perverse or legally unsustainable. The High Court's role in reappreciating evidence is limited to ensuring that the trial court's findings are plausible and not contrary to law or fact.
Regarding dying declarations, the document underscores that such statements are substantive evidence and can be acted upon without corroboration if deemed true and reliable. It highlights the importance of proper procedures in recording dying declarations, including ensuring the declarant's fitness and voluntariness, and that these procedures were duly followed in the case at hand. The presence of medical certification and the recording of the statement by a competent magistrate are critical factors supporting its admissibility.
The analysis also addresses the common phenomenon of witnesses turning hostile, often due to fear, threats, inducements, or sociological pressures such as a "culture of compromise." It recognizes that witness hostility undermines the integrity of the trial process but also notes that such witnesses' testimonies can still be partially relied upon if found credible after careful scrutiny. The document advocates for witness protection measures to safeguard the interests of justice and ensure truthful testimonies.
Furthermore, it stresses that the appellate court's power to review acquittals is limited and should be exercised only when the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous or perverse. The court should not substitute its own view unless the original findings are unsustainable or against the evidence as a whole. The importance of procedural safeguards and proper procedural adherence in recording evidence, especially in sensitive cases, is also highlighted to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
The appellants herein were tried and acquitted by the Sessions Court for offences under Sections 302, 34, 498A of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') for which FIR bearing No. 254 dated 28th September, 1999 was registered against them in Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana. However, the High Court, in appeal, has overturned the verdict of acquittal, thereby convicting all the four accused persons (appellants herein). The judgment of the High Court is dated 30th May, 2014, whereby the appellants are sentenced as under:
“Section 302/34 IPC:-To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Section 498-A/34 IPC:-To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.”
2. We may state at the outset that the conviction is primarily based upon the statement of Smt. Roshni, wife of Appellant no. 1, just before her death. This statement has been taken by the courts below as her 'dying declaration' and acted upon with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is this dying declaration which is the bone of contention. According to the appellants herein there was no reason to rely upon the same not only because of certain infirmities therein but also for the reason of absence of any corroboration. Therefore, before proceeding further, we would like to reproduce the statement of Roshni (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). It reads as under:
“.....Stated that it was the time of 3 A.M. today. I was sleeping in my house at that time. Then my husband Ramesh came and Suresh his brother, i.e., my devar was also with him. Before this, Ramesh my husband and Suresh gave beatings to me. Thereafter, my devar Suresh lighted stick of matchbox. Wife of Suresh and my mother in law namely Saroj and Prem caught hold. Those both brothers ablazed me. Thereafter, the person who had caught hold me and who had set me on fire fled away from the spot. Thereafter, outsider persons came there and put off my fire. I had become upset. Then I was shifted to Medical College by my devar Suresh and my mother in law.
My marriage was solemnized 20 years before. I have two sons Manjit and Ravinder aged about 16 and 15 years. One year ago after giving beatings to me I was thrown in a well by Ramesh and Suresh. I was taken out from the well by the villagers. On some occasion they say to bring buffalo and on some occasion they demand money and scooter. All the persons i.e. my mother in law, devrani, devar and husband used to beat me. Nothing else i intend to depose, i am illiterate. I have heard my aforesaid statement, which is correct and accurate. Admitting it to be correct i put my signature on it.”
3. As pointed about above, FIR was registered against the appellants on the basis of the aforesaid statement which reflects the case of prosecution as well. Still, in order to have the complete narration of the prosecution story, we would like to recapitulate the same hereunder.
4. Marriage between Ramesh (Appellant No. 1) and the deceased was solemnized 20 years before the aforesaid incident. They had two sons out of their wedlock, namely, Manjit and Ravinder, 16 and 15 years old respectively. The deceased was being harassed by her husband and in-laws on continuous demand of dowry which could not be fulfilled by the parents of the deceased. One year before the incident, she was even thrown in a well by her husband and younger brother Suresh but was rescued by the villagers. She was subjected to continuous physical torture and beatings by her husband, younger brother Suresh, Saroj (wife of Suresh) and Prem (her mother in-law).
On the fateful day, i.e., 20th September, 1999 when the deceased was sleeping in the matrimonial house, her husband Ramesh, Suresh, Saroj and Prem came there. S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
