GOPAL versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1213 · Decided: 27-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1213 
GO PAL 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
Criminal appeal No. 564 of 2009 
MARCH 27, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302134 - prosecution under- Two 
dying declarations made - Conviction by courts below - On 
appeal, held: Later dying declaration is not in conformity with C 
FIR and earlier dying declaration - Nature of inconsistency is 
material - Therefore, accused acquitted. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - Dying declaration - Plurality of -
1 
Reliance on - Criteria for- Discussed. 
o 
Appellant-accused (A 1) was prosecuted along with 
co-accused (A2) for offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and 
in the alternative u/s 302/34 IPC. Trial court convicted them 
u/s 302/34 IPC. Conviction was confirmed by High Court, 
rejecting the plea of inconsistency between the two dying E 
declarations. Hence the present appeal by appellant A-1. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not the plurality of the dying 
declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to F 
the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be 
voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can 
be relied upon without any corroboration. The statement 
should be consistent throughout. If there are more than 
one dying declaration, they should be consistent. G 
However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between 
one dying declaration and the other, the court has to 
examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, 
whether they are material or not. While scruitinizing the 
1213 
H 
1214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, 
the court has to examine the same in the light of the various 
surrounding facts and circumstances. [Para 8] [1217-C-F] 
B 
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P (1993) 2 
sec 684-referred to. 
2. In the present case, the dying declaration (Exh.P11) 
scribed by the Executive Officer (PW9), was not in 
conformity with the FIR and the earlier dying declaration 
(Exh.P3) scribed by ASI (PW 8) as different motives have 
C been described. That is not the only variation; there are 
Several other discrepancies, even as regards the manner 
in which she is supposed to have been sprinkled with 
kerosene and thereafter set on fire. Therefore, the 
discrepancies make the last declaration doubtful. The 
nature of the inconsistencies is such that they are 
D certainly material. That being so, it would be unsafe to 
convict the appellant. The conviction is set aside and 
appellant is acquitted of the charges. [Paras 9 and 10] 
[1217-G-H; 1218-A-B] 
E 
Case Law Reference 
(1993) 2 sec 684 
Referred to. 
Para 8 
CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal 
No. 564 of 2009 
F 
From the Judgement and Order dated 18.06.2007 of the 
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal 
No. 690 of 1993. 
G 
Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Priyanka Singh, for the Appellants. 
Vibha Datta Makhija, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
H 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the 
GOPAL V. STATE OF MP. 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
1215 
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, A 
upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the 
offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence 
of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default 
stipulation. Appellant Gopal was arraigned in the charge sheet B 
as A1. 
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: 
Saraswati Bai-deceased was a woman of questionable 
character. After being deserted by her husband Motilal, she c 
developed illicit relationship with Amal Singh (A2) who ultimately 
kept her as mistress. At the relevant point of time, she was 
residing in Tapariya (hut) at village Bichhua. 
On 1 ih March, 1992 at about 8.00 p.m. hearing screams 
' 
of Saraswati Bai, persons residing in the neighbourhood viz. D 
Rajesh Gupta (PW6), Santosh Gudda (PW2), Mukundi Lal 
(PW4), Kaliram (PW5), Chhindami Lal (PW3), and Chandra 
Bhushan rushed towards her hut. In the transit, some of them 
had seen A 1 running away. They found Saraswati Bai lying in a 
severely burnt condition in the courtyard of the hut. On being E 
enquired, she revealed that both the accused persons had 
" sprinkled kerosene over her body and set her ablaze. According 
to her, A2 was enraged by 

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