DHAL SINGH DEWANGAN versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 23-09-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 36 
DHAL SINGH DEWANGAN 
v. 
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 162-163of2014) 
SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s . .J02 - Conviction and death sentence 
by courts below for causing death of wife and 5 daughters -
Prosecution case that on the fateful night, complaint lodged that 
sound of shouting heard ji-om the house of the appellant - When 
police reached his house, PW-6, mother of the appellant informed 
that she saw appellant attacking his wife and five daughters with a 
sharp edged object - Bodies of the deceased found in a room and 
appellallf lying in one corner of the same room in an unconscious 
state with iron knife lying near his hand -Appellant sent to hospital 
- Before the Magistrate, PW-6 did not directly attribute anything to 
the appellant - However, in the opinion of trial court, her version 
implicating the appellant as spoken to PWsl, 2, 3 and 5 was 
admissible u/s.6 of Evidence Act - Placing reliance on those 
witnesses as well as non-explanation on part of appellant as to 
how incident occurred, trial court held appellant guilty - High Court 
affirmed conviction - On appeal, held: Statement of PW-6 cannot 
be said to have been made so shortly after the incident so as to 
form part of transaction - Since spontaneity and continuity was 
lost, statements attributed to PW-6 by other prosecution witnesses 
do not satisfy the essential requirement of s.6 of Evidence Act -
Further, the doctor who had examined appellant was not called as 
witness, nor any case papers of such examination were made 
available - The explanation that he knew nothing as he was 
unconscious, therefore, cannot be called, 'absence of explanation' 
or 'false explanation' - The extracts of General Diary were 
completely silent about any relevant features regarding the role of 
the appellant - Also, there was discrepancy as to seizure of cloths 
worn by him at the time of occurrence - The site map shows the 
house to be a single storey structure with a verandah and courtyard 
open to sky - Rooms were not locked and the possibility of anyone 
36 
DHAL SINGH DEWANGAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 
37 
other than the inmates of the house getting into the house cannot 
A 
be ruled out - Prosecution did not gather the fingerprints either in 
the house or even on the iron knife which was allegedly used for 
committing the offence in question - The circumstances did not form 
a complete chain of circumstances as not to leave any reasonable 
ground for the conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the 
8 
appellant - Appellant entitled to acquittal - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s.6. 
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 6 - Rationale behind - Held: It is the 
spontaneity and immediacy of the statement in question which rules 
out any time for concoction - For a statement to be admissible u/ c 
s.6, it must be contemporaneous with the acts which constitute the 
offence or at least immediately thereafter - Penal Code, 1860 -
s.302. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
PER UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. (FOR HIMSELF AND 
D 
RANJAN GOGOi, J.): 
HELD: 1. According to PWs 1 and 2, after receipt of 
information about the crime, they had reached Gandhi Chowk 
where PW-6 was crying aloud that the appellant had killed his 
wife and children. Thereafter PWs 1 and 2 along with 'CR' went 
E 
to the police station and at their instance information was recorded 
in General Diary. The extract of General Diary Entry is completely 
silent about any relevant features regarding the crime or the role 
of the appellant and in fact shows lack of knowledge about the 
crime. All that it says is that they had heard sounds of shouting 
coming from the house of the appellant. If PWs 1 and 2 were 
F 
aware that the appellant bad killed his wife and daughters even 
before they reached the police station, as they claimed in Court, 
the nature of their reporting would have been completely different. 
The fact that their reporting did not disclose any essential features 
of the crime is accepted on record and their reporting was also 
G 
never treated as FIR in the matter. It is difficult to rely on the 
testimony of PWs 1 and 2. 
PWs 3 and 5 also claim that the 
villagers had sent PWs 1 and 2 with 'CR' to make a report to the 
police. But unlike PWs 1 and 2, these witnesses themselves bad 
not gone to the police station and, therefore, their version needs 
to be considered independently. 

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