Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000430-000430 – 2018 |
| Diary Number | 7284/2015 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules High Court acquittal; affirms dying-declaration precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The dying declaration recorded by a competent magistrate after obtaining medical certification of fitness, even if recorded in the presence of police and accompanied by minor inconsistencies as to timing, is admissible under Section 32(1) Evidence Act and can alone sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC if found voluntary, truthful and reliable. Hyper-technical objections to timing or manner of recording cannot displace a declaration made at the earliest opportunity by a conscious declarant. Appellate courts may set aside an acquittal if it rests on perverse or erroneous appreciation of evidence, particularly where hostile or partisan evidence is given undue weight over independent testimony and direct dying declaration evidence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Overrules | High Court of Himachal Pradesh’s acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2010 |
| Follows | Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay; Paniben v. State of Gujarat; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra; State of U.P. v. Veerpal |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a dying declaration recorded by a Tehsildar-cum-Magistrate, once medically certified, is admissible under Section 32(1) Evidence Act even if police officers are present.
- Minor discrepancies in the recorded time of the declaration do not render it inadmissible or unreliable.
- Hyper-technical objections to recording form or presence of police cannot displace a voluntary and contemporaneous statement by a conscious declarant.
- Appellate courts may overturn acquittal if it rests on perverse appreciation of evidence, especially when hostile or partisan witnesses are given undue weight over independent testimony.
- Conviction under Section 302 IPC can rest solely on a reliable dying declaration without further corroboration.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Appellate interference standard
- Reviewed Article 136 jurisprudence (Sadhu Saran Singh; Rajesh Prasad; Phoolchand Rathore; Ajmal Beg) establishing that an acquittal may be set aside if based on perverse reasoning or misreading of evidence.
-
Dying-declaration principles
- Section 32(1) Evidence Act admits statements on cause of death; need not be corroborated if voluntary, truthful, reliable (Khushal Rao; Paniben; Laxman; Veerpal).
- No rigid form; magistrate-recorded questions and answers in declarant’s words stand on high footing.
-
Evaluation of evidence
- Tehsildar (PW-1) obtained medical fitness opinion, recorded declaration; corroborated by DSP (PW-10) and declarant’s brother (PW-2).
- Minor timing discrepancies were satisfactorily explained and immaterial to core truth.
- Hostile witnesses (PW-4, PW-5) and partisan defence evidence (DW-1, DW-2) lacked independent corroboration and failed to rebut declaration.
-
Motive and context
- Direct dying declaration disclosed verbal abuse and persistent discord, furnishing sufficient background.
- Absence of elaborate motive proof immaterial where direct reliable evidence exists.
-
Conclusion
- High Court’s rejection of dying declaration on speculative grounds was perverse; trial Court conviction rightly restored.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The dying declaration (recorded 08.12.2009 by Tehsildar) was voluntary, truthful and reliable; High Court wrongly discarded it over insignificant timing discrepancies.
- Independent witnesses (Tehsildar, DSP, Investigating Officer) consistently supported the declaration; hostile witnesses lacked credibility.
- Defence evidence (minor son, aunt) was inconsistent, partisan and uncorroborated.
- Persistent matrimonial discord and verbal abuse established a plausible motive.
- High Court’s acquittal rested on hyper-technical and speculative objections amounting to perverse reappraisal.
Respondent
- Initial FIR statement did not name the assailant; indicates no immediate allegation against husband.
- Defence witnesses (PW-4, PW-5, DW-1, DW-2) supported self-immolation theory; respondent suffered burns in rescue effort.
- Timing and presence of police during recording cast doubt on independent voluntariness of declaration.
- Medical witness vacillations suggest infirmity in declarant’s capacity and authenticity of declaration.
- No conclusive motive for husband to commit arson; humiliation could have driven self-immolation.
- Trial Court’s rejection of defence evidence unwarranted; High Court rightly accepted doubts and acquitted.
Factual Background
On 07.12.2009, the husband allegedly poured kerosene on his wife at their residence and set her ablaze; both sustained burn injuries. The wife, with approximately 70% burns, was admitted to the District Hospital, Chamba, then referred to Tanda Medical College. On 08.12.2009, the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate recorded her dying declaration in hospital after medical certification of fitness in presence of senior police officers. She succumbed to her injuries on 15.01.2010. An FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered on 08.12.2009 based on her brother’s written complaint.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act: admissibility of statements by a deceased person as to cause of death or circumstances.
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code: punishment for murder.
- Section 207, CrPC: commitment of cases exclusively triable by sessions court.
- Section 313, CrPC: examination of accused.
- Section 161, CrPC: statements recorded during investigation may differ from dying declaration but do not automatically discredit it.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirms established dying-declaration principles under Section 32(1).