LexDASIN BAI@ SHANTI BAI versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2015) l S.C.R. 1060 DASIN BAI@ SHANTI BAI V. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2008) FEBRUARY 11, 2015. [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - By setting the deceased on fire - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction C under, by Courts below relying on the dying declaration - On appeal, held: Conviction was justified - Truthfulness of the dying declaration cannot be doubted - It was within special knowledge of the accused as to how the deceased came to the premises of her house and how he got burnt -Thus, the D burden to prove those facts is upon the accused u/s.106 of Evidence Act - The failure of the accused to discharge the burden cast upon her uls. 106, provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against her - When the facts are clear, absence of motive to kill is inconsequential E and does not break the chain of circumstances - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 106 - Dying Declaration - Motive - Evidence - Circumstantial Evidence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court F HELD : 1.1. If the truthfulness or otherwise of the G H dying declaration cannot be doubted, the same alone can form the basis of conviction of an accused and the same does not require any corroboration, whatsoever in law. [Para 1 O] [1064-G] Ravi & Anr. v State of T.N. 2004 (10) SCC 776; Mafabhai NagarbhaiRaval v. State of Gujarat (1992) 4 SCC 69 - relied on. 1060 DASIN BAI@ SHANTI BAI v. STATE OF 1061 CHHATIISGARH 1.2. There is consistency between the statements of A PW1 and PW3, who were present when the deceased gave the oral dying declaration in the hospital, before he succumbed to the injuries. There is consistency in their statements. [Para 12] [1065-E-F] B 1.3. Merely because the deceased suffered 70 per cent burns, this does not raise an assumption that he could not have given the oral dying declaration. The High Court was right in believing the oral dying declaration of the deceased as it did not suffer from any infirmity. [Para C 14] [1066-E-F] Pothakamuri Srinivasulu v. State of A. P. (2002) 6 SCC 399 - relied on. 2. When there is any fact especially within the o knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon liim. Where the presence of special knowledge is with the accused, "in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him by E Section 106, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him." The appellant-accused is unable to discharge the burden cast upon her by Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as it was within her special knowledge as to how the deceased came into the premises of her house. [Paras 15, 16 and F 18] [1067 -A, C, D, H] State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254: 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 501; Babu alias Balasubramaniam & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 8 sec 60 - relied on. G 3. The ground of defense taken by the appellant, that she did not have any motive to kill the deceased, is ill founded and does "not break the chain of circumstances. Therefore, when facts are clear it is not necessary to have H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 1 S.C.R. A proof of motive or ill-will to sustain conviction. [Para 19] [1068-A·B] B c D E Mulakh Raj & Ors. v. Staish Kumar & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 43:1992 (2) SCR 484 - relied on. Case Law Reference : 2004 (1 O) sec 116 relied on Para 10 (1992) 4 sec 69 relied on Para 11 c2002) 6 sec 399 relied on Para 13 2006 (8) Suppl. SCR 501 relied on Para 15 (2013) 8 sec so relied on Para 17 1992 (2) SCR 484 relied on Para 19 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2008 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2006 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in CRLA No. 1171 of 2001. Chaitanya Siddhartha (A.C.) for the Appellant. Apporv Kurup, Sakshi Kakkar, C. D. Singh for the Respondent. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1._This appeal has been filed by Dasin Bai against the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at G Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.1171 of 2001 by which the High Court while upholding the findings of the Trial Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The facts of the case as narrated by the prosecution are briefly stated as under: 2. On
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.