LexRATTAN SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RATTAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH DECEMBER 11, 1996 B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) Cn'minal Law : Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 32( 1 ). C Admissibility of statement made by a person who was dead-Condi- tions to be satisfied-Accused intruded into courtyard of house of deceased during dead of night-Deceased cried out that accused stood with gun--Im- mediately thereafter deceased was fired at-Held: Statement need not be made under expectation of death-There need not necessarily be direct nexus D between "circumstances" and death-Even distant circumstances could be- come admissible if it had nexus with the transaction which resulted in death-Even apart from S.32( 1) such statement of deceased admissible under S.6 due to its proximity of time and space to the act of murder-Distinction between English and Indian laws pointed out. E F Section 6-Res gestae-Accused intruded into courtyard of house of deceased during dead of night-Accused recognised by deceased-Deceased cried out that accused stood with gun-Immediately thereafter deceased was fired at-Held: such a statement of deceased admissible under S.6 due to its proximity of time and space to the act of murder. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 154. FIR-Omissions in-Fact regarding wresting of gun from accused omitted in FIR-However, gun found lying near dead body-Held: FIR need not contain all details of occu"ence-Whether facts omitted never happened G at all had to be considered along with other evidence-Gmission regarding w"sting of gun inconsequential especially when there was overwhelming evidence that gun was lying near deadbody. Section 3I3-Examination of accused-Held: not a mere for- mality-Answers given by accused had practical utility for criminal courts in H appreciating entire evidence. 938 RATTAN SINGH v. STATE 939 Words and Phrases : "Circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death"-Mean- ing of-in the context of S.32(1) of Evidence Act, 1872. A The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, Hence this B appeal. According to the prosecution, on the night of the incident all the inmates of the deceased's house were sleeping in the courtyard of the house. At about 11.00 p.m. the deceased's mother-in-law woke up sensing C that somebody had intruded into their privacy and asked others whether anyone was there. Suddenly, the deceased cried out that the appellant-ac- cused, who was known to her, was standing there with a gun. This was followed by the sound of a gunshot and pellets had delved into her body. The sister-in-Jaw of the deceased wrested the gun from the accused bot the accused made good his escape. A First Information Report was lodged and D during investigation the gun was found near the deadbody. In the appeal before this Court on behalf of the appellant-accused it was contended that there was omission in the FIR regarding wresting of the gun from the accused and this omission was enough to conclude that the said part of the story was later improvement. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. If the statement of the deceased that the appellant was standing nearby with a gun had been made when the deceased was under expectation of death it becomes dying declaration in evidence after her death. Nonetheless, even if she was nowhere near expectation of death, still the statement would become admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872, though not as dying declaration as such, provided it satisfies one E F of two conditions set forth in the sub-section. This is probably the one distinction between English Law and the Law in India on dying declaration. G In English Law, unless the declarant is under expectation of death his statement cannot acquire the passport of admissibility. [945-B-D] . Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR (1984) SC 1622 and Teha/ Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1979) SC 1347, relied on. H A B 940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 1.2. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act renders a statement relevant which was made by a person who is dead in cases in which cause of his death comes into question, but admissibility depends upon one of the two condi- ti~ns; Either such statement should relate to the cause of his death or it should relate to any of the circumstances of transaction which resulted in his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.