PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA & ANR. versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 07-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
341
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA & ANR.
v.
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 194-195 of 2012)
JANUARY, 07, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 r/w s. 34 – Murder – By two accused – Setting the
deceased on fire – Information given to Police Control Room (PCR)
– Officials of PCR took the victim to the hospital – Statement made
by the victim to the doctor (PW 8) who prepared MLC, accusing the
appellants (accused persons) for the incident – Statement later made
to police Sub-Inspector (PW16) accusing the appellants – Trial Court
relying on the Dying Declarations convicted the accused and
sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court affirmed the
conviction and sentence – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The
two statements of the victim have rightly been accepted as Dying
Declaration – The Dying Declarations inspire confidence and could
be relied and acted upon even without corroboration – Suggestion
as to self-immolation as occurring in the statement of PW-6  was of
a remote hearsay and hence cannot be accepted – The burden to
establish the  self-immolation theory was on the accused, in which
it failed – The act of pouring kerosene and then putting the person
on fire, has all the ingredients of doing an act with the intention of
causing death in a gruesome manner – Hence the conviction cannot
be altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) – Conviction u/s. 302/34 and
sentence of life imprisonment affirmed.
Dying Declaration:
Principles relating to recording of Dying Declaration –
Discussed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A dying declaration could be the sole basis of
conviction even without corroboration, if it inspires confidence
of the Court. The Court should be satisfied that the declarant
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 341
341
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement; and
that it was a voluntary statement, which was not the result of
tutoring, prompting or imagination. Where a dying declaration is
suspicious or is suffering from any infirmity such as want of fit
state of mind of the declarant or of like nature, it should not be
acted upon without corroborative evidence. When the eye-
witnesses affirm that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious
state to make the statement, the medical opinion cannot prevail.
The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration
nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but
the person recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the
maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the
statement. Although presence of a Magistrate is not absolutely
necessary for recording of a dying declaration but to ensure
authenticity and credibility, it is expected that a Magistrate be
requested to record such dying declaration and/or attestation be
obtained from other persons present at the time of recording the
dying declaration. As regards a burns case, the percentage and
degree of burns would not, by itself, be decisive of the credibility
of dying declaration; and the decisive factor would be the quality
of evidence about the fit and conscious state of the declarant to
make the statement. If after careful scrutiny, the Court finds the
statement placed as dying declaration to be voluntary and also
finds it coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in
recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration.
[Para 21] [384-E-H; 385-A-C]
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710
– followed.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh (2013) 14 SCC
159 : [2013] 8 SCR 968 ; Bhagwan v. State of
Maharashtra (2019) 8 SCC 95 ; State of Punjab v. Gian
Kaur and Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2809 ; Uka Ram v.
State of Rajasthan JT 2001 (4) SC 472 : [2001] 2 SCR
1052 ; Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR
1979 SC 1173 ; Gopal Singh and Anr. v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and Anr. AIR 1972 SC 1557;
Thurukanni Pompiah and Anr. v. State of Mysore AIR
1965 SC 939 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 1999 CriLJ 4321 ; Koli Chunilal Savji and
Anr. v. State of Gujarat 1999 CriLJ 4582 ; Vijay Pal v.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2015) 4 SCC
749 : [2015] 3 SCR 394 ; Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda
v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1
SCR 88 ; Kalabai v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2019
SCC ONLINE SC 621 – referred to.
1.2 In the MLC report (Ex. PW-8/A), PW-8 specifically

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