HEERALAL versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 16-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 4 S.C.R. 283 
HEERALAL 
A 
v 
STATE OF M.P. 
Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2009 
MARCH 16, 2009 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, 
JJ.) 
~ 
.Ji. 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 302 - Appellant convicted for murder of his wife c 
- Upheld by High Court - On appeal, Held: In view of the 
discrepancies in the two dying declarations, one before the 
Doctor and another before the Naib Tehsildar, it is unsafe to 
convict the appellant - Conviction set aside - Evidence -
'<\ 
Dying declaration. 
D 
~ 
The appeal against High Court upholding the 
conviction under s.302 IPC relates to two different dying 
declarations and the apparent discrepancies therein. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: The trial court and the High Court came to 
abrupt conclusions on the purported possibility that the 
• 
relatives of the accused may have compelled the 
deceased to give a false dying declaration. No material 
was brought on record to justify such a conclusion. The 
F 
evidence of the Nayab Tehsildar who recorded· Exh.D4 
was examined as PW8. His statement was clear to the 
effect that nobody else was present when he was 
recording the statement. That being so, in view of the 
apparent discrepancies in the two dying declarations it 
would be unsafe to convict the appellant.[Para 6) [285-H; 
G 
286-A-B] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 473 of 2009 
283 
H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgement and Order dated 05.03.2008 of the 
#' ., 
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal 
Appeal No. 114 of 1994. 
S.S. Tewari, M.P. Singh, Vipin Gupta, for the Appellant. 
B 
Vibha Datta Makhija, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
,.. 
" 
1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur upholding 
the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under 
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short the 'IPC'). 
D 
3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows : 
~ • 
Prema Bai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') died 
on 18. 7.1992 in District Hospital, Chhatarpur. The appellant is 
the husband of the deceased. 
E 
Relationship of the deceased was not cordial with the 
appellant because she was not beautiful. Beside that her 
brother-in-law attempted to commit rape on her and a 
Panchayat was convened by the deceased. The father-in-law 
and uncle-in-law of accused executed an agreement Exhibit (P-
F 4) and assured that no such incident shall occur in future. 
Consequently, the deceased on 18-6-1992 came back to her 
husband house. On 19-6-1992, a quarrel took place between 
the appellant and the deceased. Consequently, the appellant 
sprinkled kerosene oil on the deceased and set her ablaze. On 
G 20-6-1992, deceased was taken to Londhi hospital wherefrom 
she was referred to District Hospital, Chhatarpur, where she 
• 
died on 18-7-1992. FIR was lodged. The dying declaration of 
deceased was recorded, investigation was triggered off and after 
completion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted. 
H The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 
HEERALAL V. STATE OF M.P. 
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
285 
The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. A 
His defence is that he brought the deceased in burnt condition 
to the hospital, along with his parents and uncle for treatment. 
He was apprehended by the police at the hospital. The 
deceased got burnt during cooking meals, Hemwati Bai came 
to her working place and informed regarding the incident. The B 
witnesses are lying to take revenge of previous grudge. 
The prosecution examined seven witnesses while the 
accused appellant examined eight witnesses in defence. After 
hearing the parties and on consideration of the evidence and 
material on record, the trial court convicted the appellant for C 
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as noted above. 
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal 
was filed before the High Court where the primary stand was 
that there was a lot of difference in the statements made. There 
are two dying declarations (Exh.D4 and Exh.03). Therefore the D 
trial court was not justified in holding the appellant guilty. The 
stand of the State on the other hand before the High Court was 
that the first Dying Declaration (Exh.D4) was a result of pressure 
and therefore the 

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