BABU LAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 54 · Decided: 31-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BABU LAL AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
OCTOBER 31, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Practice and procedure-Judgment by appellate courts-Held, elaborate 
and detailed analysis not required but only sufficient reasons for concurrence 
C are required in concurring judgment whereas elaborate and detailed analysis 
and reasoned conclusions are imperative in a judgement of reversal. 
Criminal Trial: 
Appreciation of evidence-Eye-witnesses-Whether partison witnesses-
D Held, relationship cannot wipe out credibility of evidence-If evidence found 
credible after careful analysis, it can form basis of conviction-On the facts, 
held, evidence of eye-witnesses credible-Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 
148, 149 and 302. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32-Dying declaration-Injured person 
E lodging FIR before death-Eye-witness giving evidence that deceased was in 
mentally fit condition-Whether information given by accused can be accepted 
as dying declaration-Held, there is no legal bar for treating information 
given by deceased as dying declaration. 
Prosecution case was that R, PW-20, was married to accused B, A-
F 2, but was thrown out of the house by B and re-married to C as a result 
of which B became inimical to C. On the date of occurrence, the 12 accused 
persons armed with weapons attacked C with common intention to cause 
his death and inflicted injuries upon him with their respective weapons. 
However, all accused persons left the place when mother of C, PW-2, 
G reached near him. C along with PW-2 and PW-1 went to the Police Station 
and lodged FIR regarding the incident. C was sent for medical examination 
and Doctor, PW-19, found nearly 17 injuries on his body and four internal 
injuries which were caused by sharp-edged and also by hard and blunt 
weapons. However, C died before he could be taken to referral hospital 
H for better treatment. Trial Court relying on the evidence of deceased, C, 
54 
.. 
' 
BABU LAL v. ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH 
55 
which formed the FIR and treating it as dying declaration, convicted all A 
the accused persons in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 
148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860. In appeal, High 
court upheld the conviction of 7 accused but set aside the conviction of 
the other 5 accused persons. Hence, this appeal by the 7 accused persons 
against their conviction. 
B 
Appellants contended that High Court failed to analyse evidence in 
detail while concurring with the conclusions of the court below; that 
information given by deceased could not be accepted as dying declaration 
and even otherwise, deceased was not in a fit condition to make the dying 
declaration; and that High court erred in placing reliance on the evidence C 
of eye-witnesses as they were partisan witnesses. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. While concurring with the conclusions there need not be 
elaborate analysis which would be in essence a repetition of the conclusions D 
and the reasoning. However, that does not do away the requirement of 
High Court in analyzing the evidence and to indicate sufficient reasons 
even for the concurrence. There cannot be total absence of reasons. The 
position is different when the appellate Court reverses the findings and 
the conclusions. In such a case there is an imperative requirement for 
detailed analysis of the evidence and reasoned conclusion. The High Court E 
has dealt with the evidence and it cannot be said that there was total 
absence of reasons. Though analysed in brief, yet the aspects have been 
touched. [59-C, E) 
2. 1. There is no legal bar for the information given by the deceased 
to be treated as a dying declaration. Section 32 of the Evidence Act,.1872 F 
deals with dying declaration. Great solemnity is attached to the words of 
a dying person because a person on the verge of death is not likely to tell 
lies or to concoct a case so as to implicate an innocent person. The maxim 
is "a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth" (Nemo moriturus 
praesumitur mentire). It is also said that "truth sits on the lips of a dying G 
man". The general principle on which the species of evidence is admitted 
is that they are declarations made in extremity, when the party is at point 
of death, and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive 
to falsehood is silenced and mind induced by the most powerful 
consideration to speak the truth; situation so solemn that law c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.