DASHRATH@ CHAMPA AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 24-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DASHRA TH@ CHAMP A AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
OCTOBER 24, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
c 
S. 32-Dying declaration-Statement for recording FIR and also 
u/s 161 Cr.P. C. by deceased-Based on it trial court convicting accused, 
treating the statements as dying declaration-C.orrectness of-Held: 
Conviction of accused justffied since dying declarations not result of 
product of imagination1 tutoring or prompting and was trustworthy-
D Penal Code, 1860-s. 304 (Part I) r/w s. 34. 
s. 32-Dying declaration-Governing principles-Stated 
'Y 
According to the prosecution case, accused persons attacked 
R with weapons and R sustained numerous injuries on his person. 
E RK-PW 18 and B-PW 19 intervened. R was taken to the police 
station where he lodged FIR which was recorded by the Head 
Constable. Thereafter, R was admitted to hospital where on 
examination doctor-PW 11 found 18 injuries on R's body. Same day 
R was referred to another Hospital for further treatment where four 
F days later he expired. Doctor-PW 16 carried out postmortem. The 
..,,),.._ 
eye-witnesses-R's mother and maternal grandmother and others, did 
not admit to having seen the incident. Trial Court treated the 
statement made by deceased to the Head Constable for recording 
FIR and the statement of the deceased under section 161 Cr.P.C. to 
G be statements under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. It relied on 
both the statements and the medical evidence and convicted and 
sentenced the appellants under section 304 (Part I) read with section 
/-1 
34 IPC. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
642 
) 
r• 
DASHRA TH@CHAMPA v. ST A TE 
643 
HELD: 1.1 The principles governing dying declaration are as A 
under: 
(i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying 
declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. 
Munnu Raja and Anr. v. The Stale of Madhya Pradesh, (1976] B 
2 SCR 764, referred to. 
(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true 
and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without 
corroboration. 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ors., AIR 
~ 
(1985) SC 416; Ramavati Devi v. State of Bihar, AIR (19S3) 
SC 164, ref erred to. 
c 
(iii) The Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration . D 
carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the 
result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased 
had an opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and 
was in a fit state to make the declaration. 
K Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor, AIR E 
(1976) SC 1994, referred to. 
(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be 
acted upon without corroborative evidence . 
...<.,.. 
Rasheed Beg v. State of Madhya Pradesh, '[1974] 4 SCC 264 F 
ref erred, to. 
(v) Where the deceased was unconscj&.us and could never 
make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is 
to be rejected. 
Kaka Singh v. State of MP., AIR (1982) SC 1021, referred 
to. 
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot 
form the basis of conviction. 
G 
H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Ram Manorath and Ors. v. State of UP., (1981) 2 SCC 654, 
ref erred to. 
B 
c 
D 
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain 
the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. 
State ofMaharashtra v. Krishnamurthi Laxmipati Naidu, AIR 
(1981) SC 617, referred to. 
(viii) Merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be 
discarded. Ori the contrary, the shortness of the statement 
itself guarantees truth. 
Surajdeo Oza and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR (1979) SC 1505, 
ref erred to. 
(ix) Normally the Court in order to satisfy whether deceased 
was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration 
look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye-witness 
said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to 
make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot 
prevail. 
E 
Nanahau Ram and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 
(1988) SC 912, referred to. 
F 
G 
(x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version 
as given in the dying declaration, the said declaratiOn cannot 
be acted upon. 
State of UP. v. Madan Mohan and Ors., AIR (19S9fSC 1519, 
ref erred to. 
(xi) Where there are more than one statement in the nature 
of dying declaration, one first in point of tim~ must be 
preferred. Of course, if the plurali
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.