MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA & ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 09-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 4 S.C.R. 817 
MURALIDHAR @ GIDDA & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2011 etc.) 
APRIL 09, 2014. 
[R.M. LODHA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
EVIDENCE: 
A 
B 
Dying declaration - Evidentiary value of -- Trial of c 
accused for offences punishable u/ss. 302, rlw s. 149 and s. 
148 /PC - Witnesses turned hostile - Prosecution case based 
on dying declaration - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by 
High Court - Held: If the dying declaration is recorded not 
directly from the actual words of the maker. but as dictated by 0 
somebody else, this by itself creates suspicion about 
credibility of such statement and prosecution has to clear the. 
same to the satisfaction of court - In the instant case, dying 
declaration was not recorded in actual words of victim, but was 
recorded by witness on the dictation of PSI - Further, there was 
E 
overwriting on the time of recording of statement as also 
insertion of two names in different ink - On facts, trial court 
rightly did not consider it safe to rely upon dying declaration 
and rightly acquitted the accused - High Court without 
considering the principles of dealing with an appeal against 
F 
acquittal erred in upsetting the judgment of acquittal -
Judgment of High Court set aside -Penal Code, 1860 -- ss. 
302, rlw s. 149 and s. 148 /PC. 
APPEAL: 
G 
Appeal against acquittal - Principles of hearing an appeal 
against acquittal - Culled out .. 
The five appellants (A1 to A4 and AS) along with AS 
were prosecuted for commission of offences punishable 
817 
H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A u/ss. 302, 307, 144, 148 read wifh 149, IPC, on the basis 
of the statement made by the victim that while he was 
sitting in front of a shop, the six accused attacked him 
and PW4. 
The victim died subsequently and his 
statement became the dying declaration. The three eye 
B - witnesses, namely, PW4, PW5 and PW15 turned hostile. 
The trial court held that the dying declaration did not 
inspire confidence and acquitted the accused. Howeyer, 
the High Court maintained the acquittal of A5, but 
convicted accused- appellant A1 to A4 and A6 u/s 302 r/ 
c w s.149 and s. 148 IPC on the basis of the dying 
declaration alone, and sentenced them to imprisonment 
for life . 
. Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1 Sanctity is attached to a dying declaration 
because it comes from the mouth of a dying person. If 
the dying declaration is recorded not directly from the 
actual words of the maker but as dictated by somebody 
else, this by itself creates suspicion about credibility of 
E such statement and the prosecution has to clear the 
same to the satisfaction of the court. In the instant case, 
the trial court on an over-all consideration of the evidence 
of PW-25, PW-30 and PW-36 coupled with the facts that · 
the dying declaration was recorded by PW30 as dictated 
F by PW36 (PSI) and was not in actual words of maker, and 
that there was over-writing about the time at which the 
statement was recorded and also insertion of two names 
by different ink, did not consider it safe to rely upon the 
dying declaration and acquitted the accused for want of 
any other evidence. In the circumstances, it cannot be 
G said that the view taken by the trial court on the basis of 
evidence on record was not a possible view. The accused 
were entitled to the benefit of doubt which was rightly 
given to them by the trial court. [Para 19] (830-0-G] 
H 
MURALIDHAR@ GIDDA & ANR. v. STATE OF 
819 
KARNATAKA 
1.2 This Court has consistently held that in dealing 
A 
with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must 
bear in mind the following: 
(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an 
accused person and such presumption is strengthened 
by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial 
court; 
(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of 
reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the 
appeal against acquittal; 
(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in 
considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive 
B 
c 
as its powers in appeals against convictions, but the 
appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding 
0 
of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the 
trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of 
the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view 
of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate 
court with the judgment of acquittal is not justi

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