LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus DAL SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 S.C.R. 968 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. DAL SINGH & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 2303 of 2009) MAY 21, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A and 302 - FIR lodged on the basis of statement of deceased - Dying declaration - C Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court on the ground that conviction was solely based on dying declaration and the same was not trustworthy - Held: In the facts of the case, dying declaration was trustworthy- High Court acquitted the accused on flimsy ground without appreciating material D facts - Order of conviction upheld. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 32 - Dying declaration - Evidentiary value - Held: Evidence of dying declaration must be approached with E caution - Court not to look for corroboration of dying declaration, unless it suffers from any infirmity. s.32 - Dy_ing declaration - Recording of- Procedure for - Held: Law dae.s not provide form, format, or procedure for F recording dying declaration - Requirement of certificate by a doctor in respect of state of the deceased is not essential in every case - Person recording it, must be satisfied as to capability and state of mind of the maker of the statement. , Criminal Trial - Discrepancies, embellishments and G, improvements - In the statements of witnesses - Held: . Marginal variations not to be dubbed as improvements - The omissions which materially affects core of the case alone are liable to be discredited. H 968 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. DAL SINGH & 969 ORS. Appeal - Against acquittal - Appellate court can reverse A a judgment of acquittal in exceptional circumstances, if the judgment is found to be perverse, illegal, leading to miscarriage of justice, unreasonable, based on erroneous understanding of Jaw and facts of the case. Respondents accused were prosecuted u/ss. 498-A 8 and 302 r/w. s. 34 IPC for having subjected the deceased to cruelty and killing her by setting her ablaze. FIR was lodged on the basis of the statement of the deceased made to the police officer and later she made her dying declaration to the Executive Magistrate. Trial Court C convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. High Court acquitted them of all the charges. Hence the present appeal by the State. Allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1. In exceptional circumstances, the appellate court for compelling reasons should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse, i.e. if the conclusions arrived at by E the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous F understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence. [Para 6] [977-F-H; 978-A] G Rukia Begum v. State of Karnataka AIR 2011 SC 1585: 2011 (4) SCR 711; Abrar v. State of U.P. AIR 2011 SC 354: 2010 (13) SCR 1217 - relied on. H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A 2. In every criminal case discrepancies, embellishments and improvements are bound to occur for the reason that witnesses, owing to common errors in observation, i.e., errors of memory due to lapse of time, or errors owing to mental disposition, such as feelings 8 shock or horror that existed at the time of occurrence. The court must form its opinion about the credibility of a witness, and record a finding with respect to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggeration per se does not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of C the factors against which the credibility of the prosecution's story can be tested, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible to test the same on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements, as the same may be D elaborations of a statement made by the witness at an earlier stage. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." The omissions which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.