MOHANLAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1030 · Decided: 21-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·~ 
A 
MOHANLAL AND ORS. 
... 
v. 
~ 
STATEOFHARYANA 
FEBRUARY 21, 2007 
B 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 34 and 302: 
-+ 
c 
Dowry death-In-laws allegedly harassing daughter in law - Causing 
death by setting her on fire-Dying declaration-Trial Court found in-laws 
guilty (lf committing crime under s. 302 rlw s. 34 !PC, convicted and sentenced 
them to life imprisonment-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: 
Situation in which a person is on death bed, being exceedingly solemn, 
secure and grave, are the reasons in law to accept veracity of his/her 
D statement-Since accused deprived of his right of cross-examination, dying 
declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the 
Court-Statement of deceased should not be result of either tutoring or 
prompting or product of imagination-Once the Court is satisfied of the 
declaration being true and voluntary, it could base its conviction without 
E 
corroboration-In the instant case, before the dying declaration was recorded, 
relatives of the deceased were present with her-Only a vague reference of 
dowry demand was there in the dying declaration -Thus, the dying 
declaration itself was result of tutoring and not free and voluntary-Hence, 
Courts below not justified in placing reliance on it to convict the accused-
Under the circumstances, impugned judgment cannot be sustained and set 
F aside-Accused acquitted of all charges. 
According to the prosecution, accused appellant nos. I and 3 had been 
harassing and torturing her daughter-in-law for demand of dowry and 
allegedly they set her on fire. Her dying declaration was recorded by the 
Judicial Magistrate (PW-3). The victim succumbed to the burn injuries. The 
G trial Court p:ut emphasis on the dying declaration and found accused-appellants 
guilty of committing the offences punishable under s. 302 r/w s.34 IPC and 
' 
sentenced them to life imprisonment. High Court confirmed the conviction 
• 
and sentence against the accused persons. Hence the present appeal. 
Accused-appellants contended that the very fact that the doctor did not 
H 
1030 
MOHANLAL v. STA TE OF HARY ANA 
1031 
find any boil in the armpit of the deceased falsified the prosecution case, as A 
"'..#· 
according to the prosecution, the refusal by the deceased to show the boil was 
the cause for pouring kerosene on the deceased; and that though PWs 7 and 
8 claimed to have stated before the polite about the dowry demand during 
investigation, the same was found to be untrue. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. This is a case where the basis of conviction of the accused is 
the dying declaration. The situation in which a person is on his deathbed, 
being exceedingly solemn, serene and grave, is the reason in law to accept 
B 
the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason that the requirements of 
oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides should the dying C 
declaration be excluded it will result in miscarriage of justice because the 
victim being generally the only eye-witness in a serious crime, the exclusion 
of the statement would leave the Court without a scrap of evidence. [Para 9) 
(1034-E-F( 
2.1. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is D 
"':orthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such 
a power is essential for eliciting the trJth as an obligation of oath could be. 
This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be 
of such nature as to inspire full ronfidence of the Court in its correctness. 
The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a 
result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court E 
must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a 
clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the Court is 
satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can hase 
its conviction without any further corroboration. [Para 10) 
(1034-G-H; 1035-A) F 
Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1992) SC 1817; Munnu Raja & 
Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1976] 2 SCR 764; State of Uttar 
Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ors., AIR (1985) SC 416; Ramavati Devi v. 
State of Bihar, AIR (1983) SC 164; K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. v. The 
Public Prosecutor, AIR (1976) SC 1994; Rasheed Beg v. State of Madhya G 
Pradesh, (1974) 4 SCC 264; Kaka Singh v. State of MP., AIR (19

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