KRISHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2012] 13 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 13-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 13 S.C.R. 880 
KRIS HAN 
V. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 766 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 13, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 498A and 109 - Prosecution 
under - Acquittal by trial court disbelieving the dying 
C declaration in view of the hostility of witnesses - High Court 
convicted the accused relying on the dying declaration, 
evidence of the Judicial Magistrate and the Investigating 
Officer - On appeal, held: The hostility of the witnesses would 
not demolish the value of the dying declaration in view of the 
D facts of the case - These witnesses support the prosecution 
case to some extent - Dying declaration was recorded in 
accordance with the established practice and procedure -
Dying Declaration - Witness - Hostile witness. 
Dying Declaration - Evidentiary value - Dying declaration 
E can form the sole basis of conviction if it is true, reliable and 
recorded in accordance with established practice and 
principles - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32. 
Witness - Hostile witness - Evidentiary value - Hostility 
F 
of a witness is a relevant consideration, but not the sole 
determinative factor to decide the guilt of the accused. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted along-with 
another accused (his mother) ulss. 302, 498A and 109 r/ 
G w. s. 34 IPC, for causing death of his wife by setting her 
on fire. The deceased had made her dying declaration 
alleging that the appellant-accused set her on fire and 
also used to beat her under influence of liquor and 
another accused used to instigate him. Trial court 
H 
880 
KRISHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA 
881 
acquitted both the accused on the ground that the A 
material witnesses PWs 1,3 and 4 i.e. relatives of the 
deceased turned hostile and it was not safe to rely on the 
dying declaration. High Court convicted the appellant-
accused relying on the dying declaration, the evidence 
of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (PW10) and 
B 
Investigating Officer PW11) while maintaining the acquittal 
of the other accused. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The hostility of PW1, PW3 and PW4 cannot C 
demolish the value and reliability of the dying declaration 
of the deceased. The dying declaration has been proved 
in accordance with law, is a truthful version of the events 
that occurred and the circumstances leading to her death. 
The same is reliable and in fact, to some extent, finds D 
corroboration from the statements of other witnesses. 
[Para 26] (900-E-F] 
Khusha/ Rao v. 
State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22: 
1958 SCR 552 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar E 
Yadav and Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 552: 1985 (2) SCR 621 ; 
Munnu Raja and Anr. v. State of MadhyaPradesh (1976) 3 
sec 104: 1976 (2) SCR 764 - relied on. 
2. It is not an absolute principle of law that a dying 
declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction of F 
an accused when such dying declaration is true, reliable 
and has been recorded in accordance with the 
established practice and principles. In the present case, 
the dying declaration had been recorded in accordance 
with the established practice and procedures. To its G 
correctness and authenticity, there can hardly be any 
challenge. The truthfulness of the dying declaration can 
further be evaluated from the fact that the deceased 
survived for another two-three days after the statement 
H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 
A was made from which it can reasonably be inferred that 
she was in a fit condition to make statement at the 
relevant time. In the dying declaration, the deceased did 
not unnecessarily involve the other family members of 
the appellant-accused. She only attributed the acts of 
B cruelty and beating to her husband and that too, when 
he was under the influence of liquor. (Paras 18 and 19] 
[894-8-D-G-H; 895-A-B] 
Ramilaben Hasmukhbhai Khristi v. 
State of Gujarat 
(2002) 7 sec 56: 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 530 ; Bhajju @ 
C Karan Singh v. State ofMadhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327: 
2012 (5) SCR 37 - relied on. 
3. It is not only possible but quite feasible that the 
thumb impression of the deceased could rightly be taken 
D by the SDJM. The answer of the QQ!'.;tor in his cross-
examination, where he stated that "it is correct that both 
hands of the deceased were burnt, including fingers and 
thumb." does not bring any advantage, inasmuch as no 
specific question was put to the doctor that the extent of 
E burns was such that her thumb impres

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