2023 Supreme(SC) 1109

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Manjunath & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 866 of 2011
Decided on : 06-11-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Dying declaration – For a statement to be termed dying declaration, circumstances discussed/disclosed therein must have some proximate relation to actual occurrence – If a dying declaration inspires confidence of court it can, even sans corroboration, form sole basis of conviction.
(2) Discarding of eye-witness testimony is a fact-specific inquiry – A testimony cannot be given value, in isolation.
(3) Appeal against acquittal – Acquittal will only be overturned in presence of very compelling reasons.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – For a statement to be termed dying declaration, circumstances discussed/disclosed therein must have some proximate relation to actual occurrence – If a dying declaration inspires confidence of court it can, even sans corroboration, form sole basis of conviction – In order to rely on such a statement, it must fully satisfy confidence of court – In order to make a determination of state of mind of person making dying declaration, court ordinarily relies on medical evidence – However, if witnesses present, while statement is being made, state that deceased while making statement was in a fit state of mind, such statement would prevail over medical evidence – Mere absence of a doctor’s certificate in regard to fit state of mind of dying declarant, will not ipso facto render such declaration unacceptable – In case of a plurality of such statements, it is not plurality but reliability of such declaration determines its evidentiary value – Presence of a Magistrate in recording of a dying declaration, is not a necessity but only a rule of Prudence – Dying Declaration is not to be discarded by reason of its brevity. (Paras 11.2, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6.2, 11.6.3, 11.7, 11.8 and 11.9)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 – Grievous hurt, intentional insult and criminal intimidation – Common object – Conviction and sentence – Dying declaration and ocular and circumstantial evidence – Discarding of eye-witness testimony is a fact-specific inquiry – Dying declaration was signed by thumb impression by deceased but, it is not case of prosecution that t deceased was illiterate – Doctor also does not state that injured was in a condition to sign – Dying declaration was signed by thumb impression by deceased but, it is not the case of prosecution that deceased was illiterate – Doctor also does not state that injured was in a condition to sign – Given nature of a dying declaration, it is required that such statement be free from tutoring, prompting, or not be a product of imagination – None of witnesses have established beyond reasonable doubt, guilt of accused persons – There is contradiction in testimonies in regard to number of persons who formed part of unlawful assembly – A testimony cannot be given value, in isolation – View taken by Trial Court was a possible view – High Court, without assigning any cogent reasons, ought not to have interfered with such findings – Judgment impugned set aside. (Paras 13, 18, 20, 21.8, 30 and 31)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal – Acquittal will only be overturned in presence of very compelling reasons – Presumption of innocence in favour of accused is bolstered if trial court hands down acquittal. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:

Appellants (six in number) have filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 21st September 2010 passed by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1795 of 2004 whereby appeal filed by State against verdict of acquittal in favour of all 29 accused, vide judgment and order dated 25th September, 2004 in S.C. No.162 of 1999, passed by Trial Court, was partly allowed. Overturning the same in respect of A-1 to A-5 and A-7, Court while convicting them for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 447, 324, 326, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and pay fine of ? 5000 each.

Findings of Court:

Since sentence awarded by High Court under Section 304 Part II of IPC was for 4 years, and application of exemption from surrender was disallowed by this Court, vide order dated 13th December 2010, Appellants appear to have already served sentence awarded to them.

Result : Appeal allowed.