MUNIAPPAN versus STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 27-09-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
--· 
3 s.c.:R. 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 
MUNIAPPAN 
v. 
STA'.l'E OF MADRAS 
869 
(J. L. KAPUR and M. HmAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Dying Declaration-Thumb impresBion of dead person-
AdmisBibility. 
It was alleged that the appellant had stabbed the 
deceased E. Soon after E was stabbed, he was taken to the 
Police Station where the Sub-Inspector immediately started 
recording his statement. After E had spoken one complete 
sentence, he could not speak any further and it was found 
that he had in fact died. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector took 
the thumb impression of E upon the statement as recorded, 
which was treated as the dying declaration. 
Question was that, when the dying declaration was inter-
rupted by death ensuing suddenly, then, whether such decla-
ration would be admissible in evidence; and the probative 
value of such dying declaration, which was described as an 
iricomplete document. 
Held, that the thumb impression taken on the dying 
declaration after the man was dead, must be ignored. Corro-
boration would not always be necessary if the dying decla-
ration was complete in its accusation and there is nothing to 
show that the maker of the statement had anything further 
to add. 
In this case the dying declaration was a completed state-
ment which was catagoric in character and there was nothing 
to show that the victim had anything more to say. It there-
fore, needed no corroboration and could be relied upon. 
Khu.halRao v. State of Bombay, [1958], S.C.R. 552, relied 
on. 
Cyril Waugh v. The King L1950]. A.C. 203, explained and 
distinguished. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE JurusDIOTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 49 of 1961. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated August 30, 1960, of the Madra1 High 
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 1960 and refer-
red Trial No. 38 of 1960. 
V. N. Sethi, for the appellant. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respon-
dent. 
· 
1961 
Septemlm 27. 
1961 
ftl1111iappan 
Y. 
Stat1 of Afadraj 
Hida)oa'ulloh J. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19621 
l!l61. September 27. Tho Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
HIDAYATULLATT, .T.-This is rm nppeal a~ainst 
the judgmPnt of the High Court of Madras, with 
special leave granted by this Court. The appellant 
was convicted under s. 302, I.P.C., and sentenced 
to <loath for the murder of one Elumahii on January 
24, I !J61J, at Kanm\nlrnrichi. The facts of the case 
are simple : 
Two days before this occurrence the appellan i 
Muniappan and Elumalai had a quarr<Jl at a tea. 
stall. Though tho quarrel really was between the 
appelhmt and some others, Elumalni had intervened 
in that quarrel, and made some remarks about tho 
appellant, and had ad\•iscd the party opposite to 
him to make a complaint. 
Two reports of that 
incid('nt were made, one by tho appellant and tho 
llther by his rivals. On January 24, l!)(iO, at about 
12.30 J'.M., P."W. I :Muthuswami Udayar was having 
a bath when he heard Elumalai calling out t-0 him 
"Mama''. Muthuswami Cdayar ran to the place 
from which this cry had come and found Elumalai 
with several stab wounds on his bodv. ll[uthuswami 
Cdayar questionecl Elumalai, and the latter told 
him that it was the appellant llluniappan who had 
caused injuries to him. illuthuswami gave first aid 
to Elumalni, and meanwhile Elian alias Kundaswami 
(P.W.2) and K.R. Perumal (P.W.8) also arrived on 
the scene. 
These persons carried Elumalai to the 
Police Station H ousc which was at a distance of 
about 80 yards. Tho Sub-Inspector was seen 
approaching 
from 
the opposite direction and 
Elumalai was taken to tho verandah of the Police 
Station House. 
The Sub-Inspector immediately 
startecl recording the statement of Elumalai. 
After 
Elumnlai had. spoken one complete sentence, he 
could not speak any further, and though he was 
given some soda-water to drink, it was found that 
he could not swallow it and had, in fact, died. The 
Sub-Inspector thereupon took the thumb-impression 
of Elumalai upon the statement as recorded, and 
r
••• 
-
3 [email protected]. SUPREME COURT R:E:PORTS 
871 
four other witnesses also signed or put their thumb 
marks on it. Muniappan also reached the Police 
Station House after a few minutes and virtually 
surrendered himself to the police. 
One of his 
clothes, which was stained with blood, was seized 
and in one of his pockets was found a sheath which 
was also seized as presumably belonging to the 
knife with which the stab injuries were caused. On 
a statement by Muniappan the Police went to a 

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