NALLAPATI SIVAIAH versus SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, A.P.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 26-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f-
NALLAPATI SN AIAH 
A 
-+ 
v. 
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, A.P. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 
[R.V. RA VEENDRAN AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.) 
B 
y 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
...... 
s. 32-Dying declaration-Evidentiary value of-Conviction c 
uls. 302 /PC based by trial court and High Court on two dying 
declarations-HELD: It is unsafe to record conviction on basis of a 
dying declaration alone in cases where suspicion is raised as regards 
its correctness-In such cases court may have to look for same 
corroborative evidence by treating dying d~claration only as a piece D 
of evidence-Jn the instant case, cumulative factors and surrounding 
.... 
circumstances make it impossible to rely upon the two dying 
'\ 
declarations-Prosecution having not proved its case beyond 
reasonable doubt, accused acquitted on benefit of doubt-Factors to 
be weighed by court while testing credibility of a dying declaration-
E 
Explained-Penal Code, 1860-s. 302. 
The appellant (A-1) and two others (A-2 and A-3) were prosecuted 
for offences, inter alia, punishable u/s. 302 IPC. The prosecution case 
1 
was that at about 5.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence, A-1 to A-3 chased F 
and attacked the victim with knives causing 63 injuries on his person, 
which led to his death. According to the medical examination injuries 
no.1 to 13 and 19 were on the parietal and occipital regions which were 
grievous in nature. The trial Court, relying upon the two dying 
. declarations-Ext.P.10 recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW- G 
---1-
9) at 6.00 p.m. and Ext.P-8 recorded by the Magistrate (PW-7) at 6.35 
p.m. the same day-convicted A-1 and A-3 u/s. 302 IPC and acquitted 
A-2 of all the charges. On appeal, the High Court acquitted A-3 but 
confirmed the conviction of A-1, who filed the instant appeal. 
347 
H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended for the appellant that the two dying declarations 
could not be relied upon inasmuch as the doctor who was stated to have 
:r 
certified about the fitness of the injured to give statement was not 
examined as a witness; there was no evidence on record indicating that 
the injured was in a fit condition to make the statement; there were 
B inconsistencies between the two dying declarations; and that the 
evidence of the Professor and doctor of Forensic Medicine (PW 10), 
who conducted the post-mortem, which was relevant and material, was 
altogether ignored by the Courts below. 
4 
~r· 
c 
On the questions: (i) whether the two dying declarations could be 
held to be true and voluntary and could be relied upon to convict the 
appellant and (ii) whether the dying declarations suffered from any 
serious infirmities requiring their exclusion from consideration, 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD:l.1. It is unsafe to record conviction on the basis of a dying 
d·eclaration alone in cases where suspicion is raised as regards the 
-~ 
( 
correctness of the dying declaration. In such cases, the court may have 
to look for some corroborative evidence by treating dying declaration 
E only as a piece of evidence. (Para 40] (371-C, D] 
1.2. In passing upon admissibility of an alleged dying declaration, 
all attendant circumstances should be considered, including weapon 
which injured the victim, nature and extent of injuries, victim's physical 
condition, his conduct, and what was said to and by him. A dying 
__.,\. 
F 
\ 
declaration has got sanctity as reflected in the legal maxim "nemo 
moriturous praesumitur men tire" which means that a man will not meet _ 
his maker with lie in his mouth. This court has laid down the principle 
that for relying upon the dying declaration the court must be conscious 
G that the dying declaration was voluntary and further it was recorded 
correctly and above all the maker was in a fit condition-mentally and 
physically- to make such statement. (Paras 16 and 19] (358-A, B, F, G] 
t""; 
Padman Me her andAnr. v. State of Orissa, [1980] Supp. SCC 434; 
Kanchy Komuramma v. State of A.P., [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 118; K. 
H Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor, (1976] 3 SCC 
--+ 
)' 
'1 
,, 
'\, 
1· 
...-) 
f-
NALLAPATI SIVAIAH v. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 
349 
GUNTUR, AP. 
618; Darshan Singh alias Bhasuri and Ors. v. State of Punjab, [1983) 2 
SCC 411; Kofi Chunilal Savji andAnr. v. State of Gujarat, [1999) 9 SCC 
562; Mniram v. State of MP., [1994) Supp. 2 SCC 539; Laxman v. State 
of Maharashtra, [2002) 6 SCC 710 and Sabb it a Satyavathi v. Banda/a 
S

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