LexSHAM SHANKAR KANKARIA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHAM SHANKAR KANKARIA A v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA SEPTEMBER I, 2006 [ARIJIT PASA YAT ANDC.K. THAKKER, JJ.] B Penal Code, 1860-Sections 34, 302, 304, 325, and 342-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 32 and 60-Bombay Police Act, 1951-Section 135- Dying declaration by deceased that he was assaulted by six accused-Trial C Court convicted the main accused under sections 304 Part II and 342 r/w 34 /PC and other accused under sections 325 and 342 r!w 34 /PC-High Court, in appeals by the State, convicted the main accused under section 302 !PC and other accused under Section 302 r/w 34 !PC and confirmed the other convictions and sentences-Correctness of-Held, on facts, dying declaration has been made by the deceased voluntarily-Conviction of the D main accused is altered to one under section 304 Part I !PC with sentence of JO years rigorous imprisonment-Conviction of other accused under section 302 rlw 34 /PC is set aside-Convictions and sentences of the accused under other sections, upheld. Deceased left his house along with accused nos. 3 and 5. On the next E day, accused no. 5 informed PW 9--brother of the deceased-that the deceased had been assaulted. PW 9 accompanied accused no. 5 to the spot where he found the deceased in injured condition and bis hands and legs tied to a cot. PW 9 untied the deceased and asked him as to how it had happened. The deceased replied that all the six accused, after tying to the cot, assaulted him F severely with instruments like iron pipe and wooden stick on the allegat!on that he had stolen a bicycle. PW 9 carried the deceased to his house and the deceased once again narrated the same to his mother in the presence of PW 9. The deceased was then taken to a hospital, where he was declared dead. The trial court convicted accused no. I for offence punishable under G section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to six years rigorous imprisonment with fine and default stipulations. The other five accused were convicted for offence punishable under section 325 r/w IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment with fine and default stipulations. All the six accused 709 H 710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A were also convicted for offence punishable under section 342 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with fine and default stipulations. Appeals were filed before High Court by accused challenging their conviction and sentence. State also filed appeals for enhancement of sentence and for conviction under section 302 IPC of the first accused and under section 302 r/w 34 IPC in respect of other accused. The High Court B dismissed the appeals of the accused and allowed the appeals of the State. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: I. I. The situation in which a person is on deathbed is so solemn and serene when he is dying that the grave position in which he is placed, is C the reason in law to accept veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides, should the 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 D evidence. The dying declaration is only piece of untested evidence and must like any other evidence, satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to act upon it. If after careful scrutiny, the Court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the decea~ed to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it b::isis of conviction, even if there E is no corroboration.1716-C-D; 718-B-CI Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1992) SC 1817; Munnu Raja and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 119761 2 SCR 764; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and Ors., AIR (1985) SC 416; Ramavati Deviv. F State of Bihar, AIR (1983) SC 164; K. Ramachandran Reddy and Anr. v. The 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; Ram Manorath and Ors. v. State of UP .. 11981] 2 SCC 654; State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurthi Laxmipati Naidu, AIR (1981) SC 617; Surajdeo O::.a and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR (I 979) SC 1505; Nanashau Ram and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.