LexSASIKUMAR versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 541 SAS I KUMAR v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2009) MAY 08, 2009 [0~. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.) A B Evidence: Dying declaration -~Governing principles - Discussed - On facts, conviction based on dying declaration, C by courts below - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Juditial magistrate who recorded the dying declaration was fully satisfied that deceased was in fit and conscious state of mind to give statement which was endorsed by the duty doctor. D In appeal to this Court, appellant challenged his conviction order passed by courts below by placing reliance on the dying declaration of victim-wife. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1. PW5 was the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration in the presence of the duty doctor PWG. From the evidence of PW5, it is clear that he received the requisition from the hospital Ex.PS at 12.30 F p.m. to record dying declaration of the deceased in the hospital and proceeded to record statement by putting question to her. PW5 was fully satisfied that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state of mind to give the statement which was also endorsed by PWG. (Para 8) G [545-C-D] 2.1. This is a case where the basis of conviction of the accused by the trial Court was the dying declarations. 541 H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A The situation in which a person is on his deathbed, being exceedingly solemn, serene and grave, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason that the requirements of oath and cross- examination are dispensed with. Besides, should the B dying declaration be excluded, it will result in miscarriage of justice because the victim being generally the only eye- witness in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave the Court without a scrap of evidence. [Para 9) [545-E-G] c 2.2. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying D declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that E the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an F absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. Thus the conclusions of the Trial Court and the High Court placing reliance on the dying declaration G cannot be faulted. [Paras 10 and 11) [545-G-H; 546-A-C; 548-8) Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat AIR 1992 SC 1817; Munnu Raja & Anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh 1976 (2) SCR 764; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav H and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 416; Ramavati Devi v. State of Bihar I /- ----- SASIKUMAR v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 543 .. AIR 1983 SC 164; K. Ramachandra Reddy and Anr. v. The A Public Prosecutor AIR 1976 SC 1994; Rasheed Beg v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1974 (4) SCC 264; Kaka Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1982 SC 1021; State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurthi Laxmipati Naidu AIR 1981 SC 617; Surajdeo Oza and Ors. v. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1505; Nanahau B Ram and Anr. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1988 SC 912; State of UP. v. Madan Mohan and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 1519; Mohan/a/ Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 839; Mohan Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana 2007 (9) sec 151 - relied on. c Case Law Reference : AIR 1992, SC 1817 relied on Para 9 1976 (2) SCR 764 relied on Para 9 D AIR 1985 SC 416 relied on Para 9 AIR 1983 SC 164 relied on Para 9 AIR 1976 SC 1994 relied on Para 9 1974 (4) sec 264 relied on Para 9 E AIR 1982 SC 1021 relied on Para 9 • AIR 1981 SC 617 relied on Para 9 AIR 1979 SC 1505 relied on Para 9 F AIR 1988 SC 912 relied on Para 9 AIR 1989 SC 1519 relied on Para 9 AIR 1982 SC 8
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.