1997 JTR(SC) 1117
1997 4 AICLR 13 ; 1997 AIR(SC) 3569 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 3675 ; 1997 35 AllCriC 461 ; 1997 CriLR 624 ; 1997 CrLJ 4404 ; 1997 2 EastCrC(SC) 792 ; 1997 2 HinduLR 286 ; 1997 7 JT 461 ; 1997 4 RCR(Cri) 214 ; 1997 3 RLW(Raj) 389 ; 1997 5 Scale 545 ; 1997 11 SCC 15 ; 1997 SCC(Cri) 1177 ; 1997 KHC 1249 ; 1997 7 Supreme 568
1997(7) Supreme 568
Supreme Court of India
M.M. Punchhi and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
State of Orissa -Appellant
versus
Parasuram Naik -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 1990
Decided on 21-8-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Raj Kumar Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent : S. Kulshreshtha, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
When deceased has sustained extensive burn injuries and died within 15 minutes immediately after recording her statement by doctor and the doctor had not certified that she was in her full senses and medically fit to make statement although was conscious, it was not safe to rely upon such dying declaration.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.32(1)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.300, S.302
(A) The Evidence Act, Section 32(1), governs the admissibility of dying declarations as an exception to the rule against hearsay, recognizing them as reliable evidence when made by a person about to die concerning the cause of death. The Indian Penal Code, Sections 300 and 302, define murder, its essential ingredients, and prescribe the punishment for committing it. In this case, the applicability of these statutory provisions is pivotal, as the prosecution sought to rely on alleged dying declarations to establish the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The evaluation of these declarations' credibility and reliability under the Evidence Act becomes the central legal issue.
(B) Key legal principles include the stringent requirements for a dying declaration to be credible, reliable, and voluntary, and the necessity for the court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before accepting it as proof. The principle of caution must govern the reliance on such statements, especially when corroborative evidence is absent.
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Sarita Sahu, was allegedly set on fire by the respondent by pouring petrol on her body at night in the absence of any eye-witnesses. She sustained extensive burn injuries and died the same night. The prosecution's case was based entirely on alleged dying declarations made to her mother, sister, and a doctor, as no other evidence linked the respondent to the act.
Findings of Court:
The High Court scrutinized the dying declarations and found them unreliable. The court held that the declarations made to the mother and sister lacked credibility due to the circumstances, and the declaration recorded by the doctor was made when the deceased was not in a fit condition to make a reliable statement, given her injuries and the short time before death. Consequently, the court found the prosecution evidence insufficient.
Issues:
Whether dying declarations, made under the circumstances present in this case, can form the sole basis for a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC when there is no corroborative evidence and the declarant's fitness to make a statement is questionable.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that without direct corroboration, the alleged dying declarations were not credible or reliable enough to meet the high standard required for conviction. The deceased's extensive burn injuries and the circumstances surrounding the making of the declarations undermined their trustworthiness, necessitating a benefit of doubt for the accused.
Result:
The appeal by the State was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted of the murder charge.
(A) The Evidence Act, Section 32(1), governs the admissibility of dying declarations as an exception to the rule against hearsay, recognizing them as reliable evidence when made by a person about to die concerning the cause of death. The Indian Penal Code, Sections 300 and 302, define murder, its essential ingredients, and prescribe the punishment for committing it. In this case, the applicability of these statutory provisions is pivotal, as the prosecution sought to rely on alleged dying declarations to establish the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The evaluation of these declarations' credibility and reliability under the Evidence Act becomes the central legal issue.
(B) Key legal principles include the stringent requirements for a dying declaration to be credible, reliable, and voluntary, and the necessity for the court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before accepting it as proof. The principle of caution must govern the reliance on such statements, especially when corroborative evidence is absent.
Facts of the case:
The deceased, Sarita Sahu, was allegedly set on fire by the respondent by pouring petrol on her body at night in the absence of any eye-witnesses. She sustained extensive burn injuries and died the same night. The prosecution's case was based entirely on alleged dying declarations made to her mother, sister, and a doctor, as no other evidence linked the respondent to the act.
Findings of Court:
The High Court scrutinized the dying declarations and found them unreliable. The court held that the declarations made to the mother and sister lacked credibility due to the circumstances, and the declaration recorded by the doctor was made when the deceased was not in a fit condition to make a reliable statement, given her injuries and the short time before death. Consequently, the court found the prosecution evidence insufficient.
Issues:
Whether dying declarations, made under the circumstances present in this case, can form the sole basis for a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC when there is no corroborative evidence and the declarant's fitness to make a statement is questionable.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that without direct corroboration, the alleged dying declarations were not credible or reliable enough to meet the high standard required for conviction. The deceased's extensive burn injuries and the circumstances surrounding the making of the declarations undermined their trustworthiness, necessitating a benefit of doubt for the accused.
Result:
The appeal by the State was dismissed, and the accused was acquitted of the murder charge.
JUDGMENT
S.P. Kurdukar, J.-This Criminal Appeal by Special Leave is filed by the State of Orissa challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.7.84 passed by the High Court of Orissa. The respondent/accused was put up for trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of his wife, Sarita Sahu. The Sessions Court accepted the evidence of dying declarations led by the prosecution being trustworthy and accordingly convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. The respondent preferred an appeal to the High Court of Orissa which was allowed by the Learned Division Bench of the said High Court holding that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to hold the respondent guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of his wife. It is this order of the High Court dated 31.4.84 which is the subject matter of challenge before us.
2. It was alleged by the prosecution that on the fateful night of September 19, 1979 when Sarita Sahu (since deceased) was sleeping with her mother Balmati Sahuani (P.W.4) in the outer varandah of their house in village Bilaigarh, Distt. Sundergarh, the respondent poured petrol on the body of his wife, Sarita Sahu and lit the fire. Bhadra Sahu, the father of Sarita who was sleeping nearby in the same varandah woke up and when he saw the blaze of fire he called his wife. It was then noticed that Sarita Sahu was completely burnt. She was then taken to the Laing Primary Health Centre where she succumbed to the burn injuries during the same night. The First Information Report came to be lodged. After completing the necessary investigation the respondent was put up for trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
3. The respondent denied the charge and pleaded that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.
4. At the outset it may be stated that there is no eye witness to the occurrence. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of oral dying declaration which was alleged to have been made by Sarita Sahu to her mother Balamati Sahuani (P.W.4) and her elder sister, Malati Sahuani (P.W.5). It is alleged that Sarita also made a dying declaration which was recorded by Dr. Premananda Pattanaik (P.W.1).
5. It may be stated that the factum of death of Sarita Sahu was not challenged before the courts below as well as in this court. Dr. Premananda Pattanaik (P.W.1) noted as many as five injuries on the dead body of Sarita Sahu and opined that she died because of extensive burn injuries. We, however see no reason to interfere with the said finding.
6. Coming to the complicity of the respondent in the present crime as stated earlier the prosecution mainly relied upon the alleged dying declarations made by her to her mother, Balmati Sahuani (P.W.4) and sister, Malati Sahuani (P.W.5). The High Court after careful scrutiny of the evidence did not find the same as credible one and, therefore, held that it could not be the basis of conviction of the respondent. We have also gone through the evidence of both these witnesses and are satisfied that the said evidence does not inspire confidence in us to accept it to be credible. It is the prosecution case that during the dead hours of the night the occurrence took place when Sarita Sahu, her mother and father were fast asleep. The father of Sarita Sahu (now dead) when got up, he saw the blaze of fire and called his wife, Balmati Sahuani (P.W.4). It is true that P.W.4 asserted in her evidence that she saw the accused when she got up but, however her statement does not inspire confidence in us. Both these witnesses asserted that Sarita Sahu told them that accused had poured petrol and set her on fire. It is difficult to accept this evidence having regard to the extensive burn injuries sustained by Sarita Sahu who died during the same night. If the evidence of these two witnesses is left out then the story of the prosecution as regards the alleged oral dying declaration disappears. Coming to the dying declaration (Ext.4) recorded by Dr. Premananda Pattanaik (P.W.1) we find that he was admitted in his evidence that when Sarita Sahu was brought to the dispensary she first was given an injection and thereafter her statement was recorded. He further stated that she was conscious at that time. He also admitted that she died within 15 minutes after recording her dying declaration. It is relevant to note that Dr. Premananda Pattanaik (P.W.1) has not certified that she was in her full senses and was medically fit to make a statement although he had certified that she was conscious. Having regard to the fact that she had sustained extensive burn injuries and died within 15 minutes immediately after recording the statement, it appears to us that she might not be in a proper and fit condition to make a statement as regards her cause of death. The High Court did not feel it safe to rely upon the dying declaration (Ext.4) recorded by Dr. Premananda Pattanaik (P.W.1). Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case was also do not think it safe to rely upon the dying declaration (Ext.4). The view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be unreasonable one. In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
*********