LexSTATE OF M.P. versus MOHAN LAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF M.P. A v. MOHAN LAL AND ORS. MAY 7, 1996 [G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 32. Dying declaration-Made by deceased in a fit state of mind-Omission to mention that deceased was dragged and assaulted outside his hut-Held: C such omission not fatal to prosecution case-Dying declaration could fonn sole basis of conviction if it was true and voluntary-In the circumstances of the case High Court not justified in discarding dying declaration-Order of acquittal by High Court set aside. The respondents were convicted under Section 302 read with Section D 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprison- ment for life. According to the prosecution, the respondents dragged the deceased out of his hut and assaulted him by sticks and with the butt of a gun and E also threw acid on him. The deceased himself lodged First Information Report and was admitted to the hospital where his dying declaration was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. On the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecntion. The Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charges F levelled against the respondents were fully established. However, the High Court reversed this finding and acquitted all the respondents. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. A dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, though courts look for corroboration from different circumstances since the same cannot be tested by cross-examination. Such declaration being made under a solemn sense of impending death, the deceased is usually G not likely to commit any mistake and therefore, the same is given great H 489 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. ' A weight. But at the same time a court bas the duty to scrutinise the same since the accused has no right of getting the statement tested by cross- examination. [ 494-C] B 1.2. If the dying decl~ration is found to be true and voluntary and was made by a person concerned while he was In a lit condition to make the same then the same can be easily relied upon by the courts in convicting the accused persons even without any corroboration. [495-C] Kw1du/a Bala Subrahmanyam and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1993) 2 SCC 684 and K Ramachandra Reddy and Another v. The C Public Prosecuto1; [1976) 3 SCC 618, relied on. 2. The deceased was in a lit state of mind to make the statement and he made that statement without any influence or rancour. There was neither any possibility of tutoring or prompting by any other person. The assault as well as throwing of acid on the deceased had taken place outside D his hut. Therefore, non-mentioning in his dying declaration that he was dr.igged and assaulted outside his hut is not fatal to the prosecution case. The High Court w.is wholly in error in discarding the voluntary statement of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate on flimsy grounds. [ 498-B, 499-B) E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. F G H 151of1984. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.83 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Cr!. A. No. 450 of 1981. Uma Nath Singh for the Appellant. A.K. Gambhir for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PA'ITANAIK, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 9 .12.1983 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 450 of 1980 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1980. The respondents were charged under Sections 302/149 as well as , STATE v. MOHANLAL[PATTANAIK,J.] 491 under Section 449 I.P.C. The respondents Mohan Lal and Chhagan Lal A were further charged under Section 148 I.P.C. and rest of the respondents stood charged under Section 147 I.P.C. They were convicted under dif- ferent counts by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur for having killed the deceased Mangi Lal after dragging him out of his hut and thereafter assaulting him mercilessly and throwing acid on him. On appeal B the High Court acquitted all the respondents and hence the present appeal. The prosecution case briefly staled is that, on 18.9.1980 during night all the accused respondents being armed with gun, sticks and a.cid entered into the hut inside the field of Mangi Lal where Mangi Lal was sleeping. C Respondents ihen dragged him out of the hut and some of them assaulted him by sticks and respondent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.