JAYAMMA & ANR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2021] 5 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 07-05-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 11 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
11
JAYAMMA & ANR.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2010)
MAY  07, 2021
[N.V. RAMANA, CJI, SURYA KANT AND
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r/w 34 – Allegation that on account
of previous dispute between the parties, accused with the intention
to kill the victim went to her house, doused her with kerosene and
set her ablaze – Acquittal by the trial court – However, the High
Court on basis of the dying declaration and corroborative statement
of the police officer who recorded the dying declaration and the
doctor who endorsed the mental fitness of the victim to make such
statement, convicted the accused u/s. 302 r/w 34 and imposed life
imprisonment – On appeal, held: Conviction of the accused cannot
be upheld only on the basis of the dying declaration – Narration of
events in the dying declaration were so accurate to be believed –
Injured victim was an illiterate old person and its beyond human
probabilities to have been able to narrate the minutes of the incident
with such accuracy – Owing to 80% burn injuries suffered by the
victim on all vital parts of the body, the possibility of her not being
in a fit state cannot be completely ruled out – Police Officer did not
ask the doctor to make an endorsement of fitness of the victim before
recording the statement – There is a serious contradiction between
the statement of the doctor and the police officer in respect of the
nature of burn injuries suffered on different body parts of the victim
– Alleged motive for the homicidal death was doubtful – Unusual
conduct and behaviour of victim’s son and her daughter-in-law
support the parallel version that the victim might have committed
suicide – Prosecution had sufficient time to call a Judicial/Executive
Magistrate to record the dying declaration, however that was not
done – Furthermore, the High Court dealt with the appeal against
acquittal summarily and did not notice the glaring contradictions –
The so-called motive has not been proved at all and the declaration,
thus, recites a non-existent incident – Thus, the view taken by the
   [2021] 5 S.C.R. 11
11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 5 S.C.R.
trial court is fully endorsed and the order passed by the High Court
is set aside.
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 32 - Dying declaration – Evidentiary
value of – Sustenance of conviction solely based thereon – Held:
When the dying declaration has been recorded in accordance with
law, and it gives a cogent and plausible explanation of the
occurrence, it can be relied upon as the solitary piece of evidence
to convict the accused – Dying declaration is admitted in evidence
on the premise that the anticipation of brewing death breeds the
same human feelings as that of a conscientious and guiltless person
under oath – It is the last words of a person which are presumed to
be truthful, and not infected by any motive or malice – Thus, the
dying declaration is admissible in evidence on the principle of
necessity as there is very little hope of survival of the maker, and if
found reliable, it can certainly form the basis for conviction.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal in case
of acquittal – Exercise of power by High Court u/s. 378 – Held:
Power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court u/s. 378 should
not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court
was a ‘possible view’ – Unless the High Court finds that there is
complete misreading of the material evidence which has led to
miscarriage of justice, the view taken by the trial court which can
also possibly be a correct view, need not be interfered with – This
self-restraint doctrine, certainly, does not denude the High Court
of its powers to re-appreciate the evidence, including in an appeal
against acquittal and arrive at a different finding of fact.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. When the dying declaration has been recorded
in accordance with law, and it gives a cogent and plausible
explanation of the occurrence, the Court can rely upon it as the
solitary piece of evidence to convict the accused. It is for this
reason that Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception
to the general rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence
and its Clause (1) makes the statement of the deceased admissible.
Such statement, classified as a “dying declaration” is made by a
person as to the cause of his death or as to the injuries which
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
culminated to his death or the circumstances 

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