LAXMAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 27-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

-
LAXMAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
AUGUST 27, 2002 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, M.B. SHAH, DORAISWAMY RAJU, S.N. 
B 
VARIAVA AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32-Dying dec/aratio11-Evidentiary value 
of in absence of medical certification that deceased was in a fit state of mind C 
to make the dec/aratio11-Held, where it is proved by the testimony of witnesses 
that the dec/arant was fit to make the statement, such declaration can be acted 
upon if voluntary and truthfal. 
Appellant-accused was convicted by Courts below, relying on the 
dying declaration of the deceased, the evi.dence of the Magistrate before D 
whom the statement was made and on the certificate of the doctor. 
In appeal to this Court appellant, relying on Paparmbaka Rosamma 's 
case, contended that the dying declaration was not reliable since the doctor 
had not certified to the effect that the patient was in a fit state of mind to 
make statement. Respondent, relying on Koli Chuni/al Savji's case, E 
contended that in the absence of such certification the dying declaration 
could not be ignored if materials on record indicate that the deceased was 
conscious and capable of making the statement. Since the two judgments 
relied on by the parties were contradictory to each other, the question of 
reliability of dying declaration was referred to the Constitution Bench. 
F 
Answering the question, the Court 
HELD: 1. Normally the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased 
was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the 
medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was 
in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion G 
will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of 
the doctor as to the. fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying 
declaration is not acceptable. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing 
and can be by any adequate method of communication, whether by words 
or by signs or otherwise, provided the indication is positive and definite. H 
697 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A In most cases, however, such statements are made orally before death 
ensues and is reduced to writing by someone like a Magistrate or a doctor · 
or a police officer. When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the 
presence of a Magistrate is absolutely necessary, although to assure 
authenticity it is usual to call a Magistrate, if available for recording the 
statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a 
B dying declaratiQn must necessarily be made to a Magistrate and when such 
statement is recorded by a Magistrate there is no specified statutory form 
for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to 
be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and 
circumstances of each particular case. What is essentially required is that 
C the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the 
deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony 
of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even 
without examination by the doctor the declaration can be acted upon 
provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. 
A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and therefore 
D the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established 
otherwise. (700-F, G, H; 701-A, B, CJ 
2. It is a hyper-technical view that the certification of the doctor was 
to the effect that the patient is conscious and there was no certification 
E that the patient was in a fit state of mind specially when the Magistrate 
categorically stated in his evidence indicating the questions he had put to 
the patient and from the answers elicited he was satisfied that the patient 
was in a fit state of mind whereafter he recorded the dying declaration. 
(702-DJ 
p 
Kofi Chunilal Savji and Another v. State of Gujarat, (1999) 9 SCC 562, 
affirmed. 
Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1999) 7 
sec 695, overruled. 
G 
Ravi Chander v. State of Punjab, [1998) 9 SCC 303 and Harjeet Kaur 
v. State of Punjab •. (1999) 6 SCC 545, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
608 of 2001. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13/14th October, 1999 of the 
f 
LAXMAN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTtlA [G.B. PATTANAIK, J.j 699 
Bombay High Court in Crl.A. N

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