STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SHARIFF

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 27-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
v. 
r 
SHARIFF 
.. 
JANUARY 27, 2003 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Penal C.ode, 1860: 
c 
Section 302-Husband setting wife on fire leading to her death--"-
Conviction by trial court-However, HighC()urtsetting it aside-Justification 
of-.;-Held, High Court erredin discarding the dying declarations of the wife 
and testimony of chjld witnesses thus, acquitting the husband-Hence order 
of trial court restored-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32. 
D 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32: 
Dying Deciaration-Reliability of-Discussed. 
Dying Declaration-Evidentiary value of-:-Police ·officer recording it 
themselves in presence of doctor when they could have called the Magistrate-
E 
Held, .such dying declaration is admissible in evidence since there is no 
requirement of law that it must be made to the Magistrate. 
Dying declaration in narrative form and not in question answer form-
Admissibility-Discussed 
·.Criminal Trial: 
F 
Tzstimony of child witness-Reliability-Held, testimony is reliable on 
the Jae uni of incident and cannot be discarded on account of his age and 
stray sentence in his cross-examination. 
According to the prosecution respondent-husband started ill-treating. 
G his wife after the birth of their third child. Panchayat was held and he 
was asked to treat his wife properly. Respondent was working as a labour 
and his wife was making Agarbattis to make some extra money. On the 
.·..L_ 
fateful day, respondent started quarrelling with his wife and demanded 
money from her which she had ear~ed sometime back. Thereafter he 
H 
poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Respondent's son aged 8/9 
572. 
ST A TE OF KARNA T AKA v. SHARIFF 
573 
years saw the incident and called his maternal grandmother and uncle. A 
Victim was taken to the hospital. Doctor as well as police personnel 
recorded her statement. Thereafter she succumbed to her injuries. Trial 
Court convicted respondent under Section 302 IPC. However, High Court 
acq!litted the respondent. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the prosecution had adduced reliable B 
evidence to establish its case and High Court has erred In discarding the 
testimony of witnesses and dying declarations of the deceased and the 
reasons given for acquitting the accused are wholly perverse and contrary 
to settled principles of law. , 
Responddt contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution C 
was wholly untrustworthy and the dying declarations of deceased could 
not be relied upon, therefore, High Court was perfectly justified in 
acquitting respondent; and that at any rate this was a case in which two 
views were possible and High Court having taken a view in favour of the 
accused and having acquitted him, it will not be proper for this Court to D 
interfere. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The doctor to whom deceased made dying declaration 
was the first doctor to examine her when she reached the hospital. He E 
stated that the deceased gave her own statement with regard to the history 
and that she sustained burn injuries when her husband poured kerosene 
and set her on fire. He recorded these facts in the Accident Register and 
has proved the same. There is absolutely no reason to discard his 
testimony. Police personnel also recorded the dying ·declaration or the 
deceased which are fairly long where deceased stated the background of F 
the incident and that the accused picked up a quarrel and after pouring 
kerosene set her on fire. It was recorded in the presence of doctor who 
made an endorsement to this effect. Doctor made a categorical statement 
that at the time when the statement of the deceased was being recorded 
on both the occasions, she was conscious and was in a fit condition to make G 
a statement. Therefore, the three dying declarations are wholly 
trustworthy and there is absolutely no reason at all to discard the same. 
Further even though the testimony of the brother of deceased and resident 
of the same village that the deceased stated that her husband bad tied her 
hands and legs and after pouring kerosene had set her on fire is 
trustworthy, but even if it is not taken into consideration, the three dying H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] I S.C.R. 
A declarations are quite sufficient to fasten the liability upon the accused. 
[581-E-H; 582-A, BJ 
r 
Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR (1958) SC 22; State of Uttar 
Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav, AIR [1985) SC 416; K. Ramachandra Re

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