LexBANARSI DASS AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2014] 11 S.C.R. 341 BANARSI DASS AND OTHERS A v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 534-535 of 2012) DECEMBER 18, 2014. B [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A rlw. s. 34 - Prosecution under - Of five accused - Trial court acquitted c all the accused u/s. 3048 and convicted them u/s. 498A - High Court relying on the Dying Declaration convicted them also uls. 3048 - On appeal, held: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the declaration of the deceased did not meet the requirements of dying declaration - The D ingredients of s. 3048 are also not made out against the accused in the facts of the case - Case u/s. 498A is made out against all the accused except accused No. 4 - Therefore, all the accused are acquitted u/s. 3048 and except accused No. 4 their conviction uls. 498A is upheld - Appeal against E accused Nos. 1 and 5 stands abated - Sentence of accused Nos. 2 and 3 is limited to the period already undergone - Accused persons also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the parents of the deceased for meeting the medical expenses made on the deceased - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. F 32(1) - Dying Declaration. Maxim - ' Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire' - Applicability. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court G HELD: 1.1 Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act deals with cases in which statement of the cause of death, by a person who is dead, becomes a relevant fact. A 341 H 342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 11 S.C.R. A statement by a person made before his death to be relevant, the following ingredients are to be satisfied: i) The statement is made by a person who is conscious and believes or apprehends that death is imminent. ii) T h e statement must pertain to what the person believes to be B the cause or circumstances of death. iii) What is recorded must be the statement made by the person concerned, since it is an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence. The statement must be confidence bearing, truthful and credible. The statement should not be one made on c tutoring or prompting. vi) The court may also scan the statement to see whether the same is prompted by any motive of vengeance. [Paras 15 and 16] [353-C; 354-A-F] Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710; Malle/la Shyamsunder v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2014 (12) D JT 214 - relied on. 1.2. In the present case, the incident occurred on 18.06.1998 whereas the death is on 04.08.1998. Exhibit- PM-dying declaration was recorded on 18.06.1998 itself. At the time of recording of the statement, the condition E of the patient was very stable and she was in a very good state of mind as recorded by the doctor. The bum injury was only 40-45% of the body and, according to doctor 40-45% burns is not fatal and such a patient can be saved if given proper treatment. It has also come out in evidence F that the death is not caused by the burns but because of septicemia, an infection on account of improper management of the wounds. It is fairly clear that the patient on 18.06.1998 was not apprehending death, not merely because she lived for more than seven weeks after G the incident but because of the nature of the burn injuries. [Para 17] [354-G, H; 355-A-B] Najjam Faraghi @ Nijjam Faruqui v. State of West Bengal (1998) 2 SCC 45: 1997 (5) Suppl. SCR 148; Basappa v. State of Karnataka (2014) 5 SCC 154: 2014 (3) H SCR 391 - relied on. • • BANARSI DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA 343 1.3. In the instant case, however, the dying A declaration does not either show the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in the death of the declarant-deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, Exhibit-PM- declaration does not meet the requirements of a dying B declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The very foundation of the reliability of the dying declaration is the principle of Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire which literally means that no one at the point of death is presumed to lie since one is normally afraid to meet his c maker with a lie on his mouth at the time of death. [Paras 17 and 18] (356-C-E] 2.1. In order to attract Section 3048 of IPC, one of the essential ingredients is that death of the m,arried woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or that she D should have died otherwise than under normal circumstances. In the instant case, it has clearly come out in e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.