RAMAKANT MISHRA @ LALU ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 961 · Decided: 27-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 2 S.C.R. 961 
RAMAKANT MISHRA @ LALU ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1279-1281 of 2011) 
B 
FEBRUARY 27, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s.3048 - Interpretation of - Held: The use of word 
'shown' instead of 'proved' in s.3048 indicates that the 
onus cast on the prosecution would stand satisfied on the 
anvil of a mere preponderance of probability -
Thereafter, 
D 
the word 'deemed' used in that Section is to be read down 
to require an accused to prove his innocence, but beyond 
reasonable doubt. 
s.3048 - Dowry death - Conviction of husband and E 
brothers-in-law and sister-in-law on the ground that 
prosecution proved that due to non-fulfl1/ment of demand 
of dowry the deceased was harassed, tortured and treated 
with cruelty- Defence challenged conviction by relying .on 
the exculpatory dying declaration - Held: Since the burden F 
of proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt shifted to 
the accused, it was imperative for the defence to prove the 
sequence of events which led to the recording of the 
alleged dying declaration by the Tehsi/dar - Neither the 
Doctor who 
certified that the deceased was in a fit G 
condition to make a statement nor the Tehsildar who wrote 
down the alleged Dying Declaration 
stated the 
circumstances in which the Dying declaration was recorded 
961 
H 
962 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A - Dying Declaration had mysteriously popped up and was 
referred to at the time of consideration of bail application 
-
The alleged exculpating Dying Declaration was, 
therefore, shrouded in suspicion -
Defence having failed 
to give credible version of their innocence, interference with 
B the order of conviction not called for. 
Criminal law: Dying declaration - Concept Proof 
of its authenticity - Procedure to be followed when a 
person is brought to the hospital in serious injured 
C condition - Discussed. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 
1. The prosecution has 'shown' that 
Section 3048 stood attracted since the death of the 
wife occurred within seven years of the solemnization 
of the marriage; indubitably, it was an unnatural death. 
It also came in evidence that immediately after her 
marriage a demand for a scooter was made and this 
demand recurred with regularity and that about fifteen 
E days prior to the unnatural death of the hapless young 
wife, her Grandfather PW1 first did not accede to the 
request of the Accused to send the deceased/victim to 
her matrimonial house because of their harassment 
and cruelty towards her for not meeting their demands 
F of dowry. Only when the Accused assured her 
Grandfather that she would not be ill-treated, that she 
was sent back to her matrimonial house. The 
statement of the Mother PW2 was also to the same 
effect. Therefore, the requirement of Section 3048, IPC 
G that the dowry demand should have been made soon 
before the death stood satisfied. [Para 4] [968-F-H; 969-
A-C] 
2. The risks while admitting a Dying Declaration 
H and the state.merits falling within the domain of Section 
RAMAKANT MISHRA @ LALU v. STATE OF U.P. 
963 
32(1) run higher in contrast to other sundry evidences, A 
and this entails a huge bearing on their admissibility 
and credibility. Such statements are neither made on 
oath nor the maker of the statement would be available 
for cross-examination nor are they made under the 
influence of the supremacy and the solemnity of the B 
court-room. However, once a Dying Declaration is held 
to be authentic, inspiring full confidence beyond the 
pale of doubt, voluntary, consistent and credible, 
barren of tutoring, significant sanctity is endowed to 
it; such is the sanctitude that it can even be the C 
exclusive and the solitary basis for conviction without 
seeking any corroboration. [Para 5] [969-G-H; 970-A-
C] 
3. Whenever a person is brought to a hospital in D 
an injured state which indicates foul-play, the hospital 
authorities are enjoined to treat it as a medico-legal 
case and inform the police. If the doctor, who has at-
tended the injured, is of the opinion that death is likely 
to ensue, it is essential for him to immediately report E 
the case to the police; any delay in doing so will al-
most never be brooked. The police in turn should be 
alive to the need to record a declaration/statement of 
the injured person, by pursuing a procedure which 
would make the recording of it beyond the pale of F 
doubt. This is why an i

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