GOVINDAPPA & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2010] 6 S.C.R. 962 · Decided: 11-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 962 
GOVINDAPPA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1469 of 2008) 
MAY 11, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 498-A/34, 302134 - Conviction 
under - Accused persons poured kerosene on deceased-
C daughter-in-law and lit fire on her- Dying declaration recorded 
by Magistrate - Certificate of doctor that the deceased was 
in fit state of mind to give dying declaration -Conviction based 
on dying declaration - Interference with - Held: Not called for 
- The evidence of doctor clearly showed that the deceased 
D was in a sound state of mind while giving the dying declaration 
before Magistrate - Such a dying declaration has got due 
weight in the evidence - Further, evidence of eye-witnesses 
proved that accused ill-treated the deceased and subjected 
her to cruelty and that they were involved in the commission 
E of the offences - Conviction upheld - Crime against Women 
- Evidence Act, 1872 - s.32 - Dying declaration. 
Prosecution case was that the accused persons who 
WE!re the in-laws of the deceased burnt her by pouring 
kerosene and lighting fire on her. The neighbors 
F extinguished the fire and took the deceased to the 
hospital. The doctor, PW-7 treated the deceased and 
informed the police. The magistrate PW-12 recorded the 
dying declaration of the deceased in the presence of PW-
7. Trial court convicted the appellants A-1, A-2, A-4 as also 
G A-3, mother-in-law and A-5, grandmother-in-law for 
offences under Section 498-A/34 IPC and Section 302134 
IPC. On appeal, High Court upheld conviction of 
appellants; however it acquitted A-3 and A-5. Hence the 
appeal. 
H 
962 
GOVINDAPPA & ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
963 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. It is essential that the person who recorded 
the dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased 
was in a fit state of mind. The certification by the doctor 
is essentially a rule of caution and, therefore, the 
B 
voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be 
established otherwise. The evidence of doctor (PW-7) 
clearly showed that the deceased was in a sound state 
of mind while giving the statement before the Tahsildar 
PW-12. In such circumstances, such a dying declaration 
C 
has got due weight in the evidence. Further, the doctor 
explained that though the c:leceased sustained 100% 
burn injuries, she was in a position to talk. In such 
circumstances, her statement cannot be rejected on the 
ground that she sustained severe burn injuries. Normally, 
the person on the verge of death would not implicate D 
somebody falsely. In the light of dying declaration 
coupled with the evidence of eye-witnesses, there was 
ample evidence on record to hold that the appellants ill-
treated the deceased and subjected her to cruelty by 
giving both mental and physical torture and in 
E. 
furtherance of their common intention only to commit the 
murder of the deceased, poured kerosene and set fire on 
her who ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The dying 
declaration fully corroborated the evidence of Doctor and 
Tahsildar who recorded it. [Para 15) [970-F-H; 971-A-D] 
F 
2. The analysis of the prosecution witnesses, 
particularly, PW-3, PW-4, PW-10 elderly person of the 
village and PW-12 Taluk Executive Magistrate who 
recorded the dying declaration of the deceased clearly G 
proved the involvement of appellants in the commission 
of offence as charged and they were rightly awarded 
sentence of life imprisonment. Though, it was pointed out 
that there were certain discrepancies, they all were 
minimal and did not affect the case of the prosecution. 
H 
964 
SUPREME COURT REPO~TS 
[2010] 6 S.C.R. 
A In view of the oral evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, 
PW-9, PW-10, PW-12 coupled with dying declaration Ex. 
P-~l, the prosecution fully established its case against the 
appellants. [Para 16] [971-E-F] 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1469 of 2008. 
c 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 04.10.2007 of the High 
Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 2573 
of 2006. 
Sanjay Jain, Vinay Arora, Mukesh Kumar for the 
Appellants. 
Sanjay R. Hegde, A. Rohen Singh, Ramesh K. Mishra, 
Vikrant Yadav, Ramesh Kr. Mishra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the 
final judgment and order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the High 
E Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appe

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