PANCHDEO SINGH versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 07-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PANCHDEO SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
DECEMBER 7, 2001 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 32. 
Dying declaration-Reliability of-Accused-Conviction based on dying 
declaration-Statement in declaration as to presence of accused at the scene of C 
crime-Declaration recorded by Magistrate in the presence of Doctor-Satis-
faction of Magistrate that injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making 
declaration-No medical certification that injured was in a fit state of mind-
Held, not safe to rely upon such a declaration. 
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302, 148 and 149. 
Murder-Accused-Conviction based on dying declaration-Validity of 
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 
oflndian Penal Code, 1860. He was also convicted under Section 324 of the 
I.P.C. read with1Sections 148 and 149. The conviction and sentence of life 
imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court was affirmed 
by the High Court. Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court relied on 
a statement of the deceased in the dying declaration with regard to pres· 
ence of the appellant accused at the site of the occurrence. The declaration 
D 
E 
was recorded by a Magistrate in the presence of a Doctor. Though the 
F 
Magistrate opined that injured was in a fit state of mind of making a 
declaration yet no certification to that effect or signature of the Doctor was 
taken on the declaration. In his evidence, the Magistrate also deposed that 
he did not recollect as to whether the deceased put up his signature on the 
declaration. The question in this appeal is as to whether snch a declaration 
G 
by itself would tantamount to substantial evidence against the appellant 
warranting the conviction and sentence as affirmed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
503 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. A dying declaration itself can be treated as a substantive 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
piece of evidence and can be the basis of an order of conviction and 
sentence without there being any corroboration, provided, however, the 
same brings forth a sense of confidence and trustworthiness in the mind of 
the Court. lle declaration most be such so as to evoke confidence in the 
factual context. [510-B; DJ 
2. In the instant case Court is unable to record its confidence on the 
declaration so as to lend support and concurrence to the judgment under 
appeal. It is only the Judicial Magistrate, who has staled from the witness 
box that the declarant was in a fit condition to make the statement and he 
was otherwise satisfied in regard thereto. The Doctor was available but 
unfortunately there is neither any certification as regards the state of the 
condition of the declarant nor even a signature of the Doctor in the decla-
ration. Why did not the Doctor certify the fitness of the person making the 
statement or even append his signature, there i.; no answer to the same. 
lle magistrate also did not recollect as to whether the deceased did put his 
signature or not but since there Is no mention of "L. T.I!' before the name 
of deceased obviously left thumb Impression Is not there on the dying 
declaration. This ls the declaration which happened to be the only material 
piece of evidence on the basis of which the Trial Court came to a conclusion 
that the appellant herein ought to be found guilty under Section 302 IPC 
warranllna sentence of life Imprisonment. It Is not a very safe piece of 
evidence to rely upon for conviction under Section 302 IPC. 
[!09-H; 510·A; B·E] 
Ramnath Madhoprasad and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 
(1953) SC 420, referred to. 
Tarachand Damu Sutar v. The Statt of Maharashtra, AIR (1962) SC 
130; Munnu Raja and A11r. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (1976) SC 
2199; Arvi11d Singh v. State of Bihar, JT (2001) 5 SC 127 and Paperambaka 
Rosamma and Ors. v. State of A.P., [1999] 7 SCC 695, relied on. 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No, 497 
of 2000. 
I 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.99 of the Patna High Court in 
Cr!. A. No. 64 of I 989(R). 
H 
Jaspal Singh H.M. Singh and Anil Hooda for the Appellant. 
.. 
.... 
PANCHDEO SINGH v. STATE [BANERJEE, J.] 
Ashok Mathur for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
505 
A 
BANERJEE, J. Admissibility of a dying declaration has had judicial 
scrutiny for over five decades. Whereas the earlier view in Ramnath 's case 
(Ramn

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