KANTI LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 17-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

'1 
) 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 525 
KANTI LAL 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
Criminal Appeal No. 1133 of 2001 
APRIL 17, 2009 
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN 
REDDY, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss.304-A and 498-A - Death of a married woman by bum 
injuries within 7 years of her marriage - Conviction of husband 
of victim and his relatives by trial court -
High Court 
convicting the husband and one of his brothers and acquitting 
all other accused on appeal Held : Trial court and High Court 
rightly held that prosecution had proved beyond reasonable 
doubt that the victim had been harassed and tortur_ed by her 
husband and his brother with demand of dowry - There is no 
infirmity in findings recorded by High Court warranting 
interference - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 113-B. 
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: 
s.32 - Dying declaration -
Victim died of 90% burn 
injuries - Defence produced dying declaration alleged to have 
been made by victim wherein she attributed the bum injuries 
to accidental fire - Held: The defence witness to whom alleged 
dying declaration was stated to have been made, ignored the 
basic principles at the time of recording alleged dying 
declaration - Trial court and High Court rightly rejected the 
alleged dying declaration. 
The appellant (A-1) and his brothers A-2, A-3, A-4, A-
6, father A-5 and mother A-7 were convicted and 
sentenced ulss 304-A and 498-A IPC in connection with 
525 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A death of wife of A-1 with 90% burn injuries. The trial court 
convicted and sentenced the accused of the offences 
charged. It, doubting the veracity of the alleged dying 
declaration (Ex. D-4) stated to have been made before the 
Naib Tehsildar (DW-2), directed higher authorities of the 
B doctor (PW-11 ), the Station House Officer (PW 12) and OW 
2 to take disciplinary action against them for not 
discharging their official duties properly and diligently. 
Whereas the accused file appeal challenging their 
conviction, OW 2 filed a petition u/s 48~ Cr.P.C. seeking 
c to quash the adverse observation made in para 40 of the 
judgment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the 
sentence as regards A-1 and A-3 and acquitted the other 
accused. It dismissed the petition of DW 2. 
In the instant appeals filed by A-1 and A-3, it was 
D contended for the appellants that the trial court as also 
the High Court both were not justified in rejecting the 
dying declaration made by the deceased to DW 2, an 
officer of the State Government, stating that she received 
burn injuries as a result of an accidental fire; that the 
E prosecution also failed to prove that the deceased. soon 
before her death was subjected to cruelty or harassment 
for or in connection with the demand of dowry. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is well-settled that one of the important 
tests of credibility of a dying declaration is that the person, 
who recorded it, must be satisfied that the deceased was 
in a fit state of mind. For placing implicit reliance on dying 
declaration, court must be satisfied that the deceased 
G was in a fit state of mind to narrate the correct facts of 
occurrence. If the capacity of the maker of the statement 
to narrate the facts is found to be impaired, such dying 
declaration should be rejected, as it is highly unsafe to 
place reliance on the same. The dying declaration should 
H 
KANTI LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
527 
... 
l 
be voluntary and should not be prompted and that A 
physical as well as mental fitness of the maker is to be 
proved by the prosecution. [Para 21] [541-C-E] 
1.2 In the instant case, DW-2 did not take any 
certificate from the doctor to prove that the deceased was 
B 
in a fit state of mind to give statement nor did he record 
any endorsement to that effect on the alleged dying 
declaration [Ext.-D-4]. Further, according to the Doctor 
(PW 11 ), the dying declaration was not recorded by the 
Tehsildar (OW 2) but was recorded by his Reader. It is also c 
proved on record that DW-2 did not ask preliminary 
questions from the deceased before the dying declaration 
allegedly made by her was recorded and this fact also 
created doubt about the correctness and truthfulness of 
the dying declaration. It is also the evidence of DW-2 that 
D 
after recording the alleged statement of the deceased, he 
did not seal the dying declaration and the unsealed 
document was handed over to the Station House Officer 
(PW 12). [Para 22] [541-F-H;

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