LexNAEEM versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 36 : 2024 INSC 169 Naeem v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1978 of 2022) 05 March 2024 [B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Conviction of the appellants-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302 and 34, Penal Code, 1860 based solely on the dying declaration, if justified. Headnotes Evidence – Dying declaration, sole basis of conviction – Appellants convicted for offences punishable u/ss.302 and 34, Penal Code, 1860 – Correctness: Held: Dying declaration can be the sole basis of the conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court – Court is required to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination – There cannot be an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless corroborated – Rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence – Where the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true, voluntary, free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and it is coherent and consistent, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration– Material placed on record revealed that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination – Dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) was cogent, consistent, trustworthy and reliable to base the conviction on the same – No reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact that the dying declaration was true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement – No legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction without there being any independent corroboration – However, in the [2024] 3 S.C.R. 37 Naeem v. State of Uttar Pradesh dying declaration, the motive attributed by the deceased was to accused No.1-deceased’s devar who she had a quarrel over partition of the house and the role of pouring kerosene on the victim and setting her ablaze was also attributed to him – Insofar as accused No.2 (wife of accused No.1) and her brother-accused No.3 are concerned, the statement of the victim only states that they aided accused No.1 however, no specific role of how they assisted him could be found in the dying declaration – Thus, the said dying declaration can be the sole basis of maintaining the conviction of accused No.1 – Accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 entitled to the benefit of doubt and are acquitted – Impugned judgment upholding the conviction and sentence in respect of the said appellants is quashed and set aside – Appeal qua accused No.1 is dismissed. [Paras 7, 11, 14-16] Case Law Cited Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi, [2010] 9 SCR 993 : (2010) 9 SCC 1 : 2010 INSC 491 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Dying declaration; Sole basis of the conviction; Corroboration rule of prudence; Voluntary dying declaration. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1978 of 2022 From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No.7393 of 2017 Appearances for Parties Sharan Thakur, AAG, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Srilok Nath Rath, Ms. Reena Rao, Mohd Adeel Siddiqui, Bipin Kumar Jha, Ms. Komal Jha, Ms. Nandani Gupta, Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Sudeep Kumar, Mustafa Sajad, Ms. Rupali, Ms. Keerti Jaya, Advs. for the appearing parties. 38 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 17th December 2019, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1589 of 2018 and 7393 of 2017, whereby the Division Bench dismissed both the criminal appeals preferred by the appellants, namely, Pappi @ Mashkoor (accused No.1), Naeema (accused No.2) and Naeem (accused No.3) and upheld the order of conviction and sentence dated 24th October 2017 as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 260 of 2017. 2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeals are as under: 2.1. On 1st December 2016, the Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad received a written report at 08:15 pm which was a tran
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.