PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI versus THE STATE OF ODISHA

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 10-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
PRADEEP BISOI @ RANJIT BISOI
v.
THE STATE OF ODISHA
(Criminal Appeal No.1192 of 2018)
OCTOBER 10, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Statement of
injured under, if can be treated as dying declaration after death –
Brother of PW-1, informant attacked by the appellant-accused and
later died in hospital – Appellant convicted u/s.304 Part II, IPC –
Plea of appellant that the statement of the injured-deceased recorded
u/s.161 cannot be treated as dying declaration since his death
occurred after more than three months – Held: s.32 of the 1872 Act
deals with cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who
is dead or cannot be found etc. is relevant – Statement recorded by
police u/s.161, CrPC falling within the provisions of Clause(1) of
s.32, 1872 Act is relevant and admissible – Trial Court rightly held
that the statement of the injured-deceased was admissible u/s.32,
1872 Act because it was regarding his cause of death and how he
was injured – Further, the statement made by the injured-deceased
found corroboration from the injuries on his body and the sequences
of the events as claimed by the prosecution – No error in the judgment
of the trial court as well as of the High Court in relying on the
statement of the injured-deceased recorded by the IO – Evidence
Act, 1872 – s.32 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.304, Part II.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals
with cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is
dead or cannot be found etc. is relevant. Section 161, CrPC deals
with examination of witnesses by police. Section 162, CrPC deals
with “statements to police not to be signed– Use of Statements
in evidence”.  [Paras 8, 9] [951-D; 952-C]
1.2 Sub-section (2) to Section 162, CrPC incorporates a
clear exception to what has been laid down in sub-section (1).
The statement recorded by police under Section 161, falling within
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 947
       947
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
the provisions of clause(1) of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act,
thus, is clearly relevant and admissible.  Present is a case where
a statement was recorded by I.O. under Section 161 of the victim
on 05.12.1990. Both the trial court and the High Court held the
statement relevant and placed reliance on the said statement.
No error is found in the judgment of the trial court as well as of
the High Court in relying on the statement of the injured recorded
by the I.O. on 05.12.1990. The trial court after appreciation of
evidence recorded the findings that deceased had acid injuries
as well as bomb blast injuries.  In the acid attack, he lost his eye-
sight and also lost his right foot. The trial court rightly held that
statement of deceased made on 05.12.1990 is admissible under
Section 32 because it is regarding his cause of death and how he
was injured. [Paras 10, 15-17] [953-C; 960-E-F; 961-F]
1.3 The injuries on the body of deceased fully support the
prosecution case.  The statement made by the deceased on
05.12.1990, thus, finds corroboration from the injuries on the
body of deceased and the sequences of the events and manner of
incidents as claimed by the prosecution. PW1, the informant fully
supported the prosecution case. [Para 18] [962-C]
Mukeshbhai Gopalbhai Barot v. State of Gujarat
(2010) 8 SCALE 477 ; Sri Bhagwan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2013) 12 SCC 137 : [2012] 12 SCR 774 ;
Najjam Faraghi @ Nijjam Faruqui v. State of West
Bengal (1998) 2 SCC 45 : [1997] 5 Suppl.  SCR  148
– relied on.
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710 ;
Paparambaka Rosamma and Others v. State of A.P.
(1999) 7 SCC 695 : [1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 328 ; Koli
Chunilal Savji and Another v. State of Gujarat
(1999) 9 SCC 562 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 284 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
(2002) 6 SCC 710
   referred to
Para 4
(2010) 8 SCALE 477
   relied on
Para 5
[2012] 12 SCR 774
   relied on
Para 5
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 148
relied on
  Para 12
[1999] 2 Suppl. SCR 328
referred to
  Para 13
[1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 284
referred to
  Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1192 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2017 of the High Court
of Orissa, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1992.
Yasobant Das, Sr. Adv., B. B. Pradhan, M. A. Aleem Majid, Kedar
Nath Tripathy,  Advs. for the Appellant.
Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Jud

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