STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus HEMANT KAWADU CHAURIWAL ETC.

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 1112 · Decided: 16-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1112 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
HEMANT KAWADU CHAURIWAL ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1828-1829 OF 2013) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 3048 rlw. s. 34 and s. 
c 498A - Prosecution under - Of five accused - Trial court, 
relying on Dying Declaration and the letters written by the 
deceased to her father, convicted accused No. 1 ulss. 302 
and 498A rlw. s. 34 and accused No. 4 u/s. 498-A, while other 
accused were acquitted -
In appeal by the convicted 
D accused, High Court, acquitted them giving them benefit of 
doubt -
On appeal by the State, held: There are 
improvements in the testimony of material witnesses- In the 
facts and circumstances of the case, the Dying declaration 
as well as the alleged letters have not been proved - The 
E High Court rightly pointed out lacunae in the shabby 
investigation of the case - Thus the prosecution failed to 
prove its case beyond doubt - Rather possibility of suicide 
(as per the defence version) cannot be ruled out - Hence, 
the accused was rightly acquitted by High Court. 
F 
Dying Declaration - Evidentiary value - Held: Dying 
Declaration can be the sole basis of conviction - But, since;,_ ' 
it goes against the cardinal principle of law that 'evidence · · 
must be direGt', it must be judged and appreciated in the light 
G of surrounding circumstances and its weight should be 
determined with reference to the principle governing the 
weighing of evidence - Evidence. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
H 
1112 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. HEMANT KAWADU 
1113 
CHAURIWAL ETC. 
HELD: 1.1 It is a settled law that dying declaration A 
can be the sole basis of conviction and it does not 
require any corroboration. But it is equally true that dying 
declaration goes against the cardinal principle of law that 
'evidence must be direct'. Thus, dying declaration must 
be judged and appreciated in light of the surrounding B 
circumstances and its weight determined by reference 
to the principle governing the weighing of evidence. 
[Para 8] [1118-A-C] 
1.2 In the present case, dying declaration was c 
recorded by the Naib Tehsildar after she was informed 
vide a Memo by the police authorities. However, the said 
police official who delivered the Memo was never 
produced or examined before the Court. The Naib 
Tehsildar deposed before the Court that fitness D 
certificate as to mental capacity of the deceased was 
taken from the doctor. However, the certificate nowhere 
states that the deceased was in a fit and stable mental 
condition at the time of making the statement. The dying 
declaration was recorded on the same day of incident E 
but the same was recorded at 5:45 PM while the incident 
occurred in the morning at 8:00 AM. The dying 
declaration then formed the basis of the FIR lodged next 
day of the incident. However, there is no explanation as 
to in whose custody the said crucial piece of evidence F 
was placed for one full day. The prosecution did notgive 
any evidence to explain the said delay. [Para 8] 
[1118-C-G] 
2. As regards the alleged letters written by the G 
deceased to herfather (PWJ), PWJ himself testified that 
the letters were written by the deceased in her own 
handwriting. The prosecution, however, had a duty to 
establish the veracity of such an important piece of 
evidence. The prosecution explained that it was unable H 
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A to find the handwriting of the deceased by any other 
means. However, it is not explained as to what steps were 
taken to investigate the said evidence in the case. Further, 
while recording the dying declaration, Naib Tehsildar 
deposed that the deceased was illiterate and the dying 
B declaration was read over and explained to her. These 
two facts are self-contradictory and severely detrimental 
to the prosecution case which ought to have been 
explained by the prosecution. [Para 9][1118-H;1119-A-D] 
c 
3. In the evidence of PW3 and PW4 (mother of the 
deceased) material improvements were made to support 
the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer (PW5) 
seemed to have deliberately or negligently erred in 
investigating the case. The case was of burn injuries, 
D there ought to have effect of the incident in the house, 
the place of occurrence was an important fact, the 
seizure of surrounding material was also important. 
However, no such efforts were made. Even the 
handwriting of the deceased was not

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