LexMUNNU RAJA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G II 764 MUNNU RAJA & ANR. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Norember 20, 1975 CY. v. CnANDRAcnun AND A. c .. GuPTA, JJ.J 1.P.C. Section 302 rlw Section 34-Dying cleclaratio11-whether F.l.R. can be treated as dying declaration-Appreciation of dying declarotion-Whc1her dying declaration n1ust corer the whole incident., Section 32( l) o/ Evidence Act-Vying declaration 111ade before ini·estigating dffice.r in presence of o doctor but in the absence of a Magistrate-Ei•identary l:alue of. the testimony of hostile eye witnesses-Powers of lligh Court in_appeal against acquittal. · · The appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge on the charge of committing murder of Bahadur Sinsh. _ The prosecution relied on the evidence of two ele witnesses and three dying ckclarations mad.e. by the deceased. The two eye witnesses supported the prosecution case only partly and were; therefor, p;;or- mitted to be cross-examined hy the Public Prosecu.tor. The Session'i Judge thought it unsafe to rely on the testimony of the two eye witnesses and was also not impressed by any of the dying declarations. Consequently he acquitted the appellants. • ,, - The High Court in appeal did not discard the evidence of the eye witnesses '* but utilised it by way of corroboration to the dying declarations. The High Court set aside the order of asquittal and convicted the appellants under section 301 read with section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for Jife. In an appeal under ~ection 2( J) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of .criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, · HELD: J. The Sessions Court rightly discarded the evidence of the.hostile c;e witnesS"Cs. They resiled from their Police Statements and it is evident that, they have no re2ard for truth. Their evidence cannot be used to corrobon"tte the dying declarations. [766-C] 2. In regard tQ the dyirig declarations the Session., Court ·wboUy ov-erlookcd the earliest dying declaration which was made by the deceased. soon after the incident. The· second dying declaration was the first information report Jodge<l by the deceased at the Police Station. The Sessions Judge was clearly in error in holding that the first information report cannot be treated as a d;·ing declara- tion. After making the statements before the police the deceased succumbed to his injuries and. therefore, the statement can be treated as a dying declaratior.. ·and is admissible under section 32( J) of the Evidence Act. The .maker of th~ statement is dead arid the statement relates to the cause or his death. [766DF] 3. It is · weU settled that_ though a dying declaration must be apPrOached with caution for the reason that the maker of the statement cannot be subjected ta cross examination, there i.s neither a rule of law nor a rule of prudenee that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. [7660] 4. Law does not require that the maker of the dying declaration mu"t cover the whole incident or narrate the case history. \Vhat is necessarv is that the whole of the statement made by the deceased must be laid before the cmurt \vithout t:impering with its terms or its tenor. [767-q 5. The deceased did not bear ~ny enmity or hostility towards the appdJant-1 nor did any other persons who were in the company ot the deceac;;ed after the assault were shown to have any anin1us for implicating the appellantc;; f<11"e· Jy. [767EJ o;::.,• ~ .. .. f r i • • • • • MUNNU RAJA v. M. P. STATE (Chawlrachud, J.) 7ES 6. The second dying d~claration was not made to thC-JilveStigati;g Officer~ It was_ made by way of First Information Report and it was only after the information was_ recorded that the investigation commenced. The High Court was right in relying on the first and· second dying declatations. Considering the fact~ and circumstances of the c;¥;.C these two dying declarations -can be accepted without corroboration. [767F, 768q 7. The High Court ought not to ha~e relied on the third dying declaration which is !iiaid to have been made by the deceased in ·1he hospital. The Investi- gating Officer ought to h~ve requisitioned the services of a Magistrate for re- cording that dying declaration. Investigating Officerg are naturally integrated in the success of the investigation and the practice ·of the Investigating Officer himse1f recording a dying declaration during the course or investigation ought ·not to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.