LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus CHAMPA LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 463 ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN A v. CHAMPA LAL (Criminal Appeal Nos. 305-306 of 2003) ) APRIL 1, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Conviction by trial court - On the basis of dying declaration recorded by police official c - Acquittal by High Court holding that dying declaration not in accordance with Police Rules - On appeal held: Accused liable to be convicted - The dying declaration is admissible - ,, - The police official categorically stated that it was not possible to get a Magistrate to record the dying declaration - D Reliance on the Police Rules which provide procedural guidelines, cannot take away effect of s. 32 - Evidence of prosecution witnesses also prove the case - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32 - Rajasthan Police Rules, 1964. Respondent-accused was prosecuted for having E killed his wife by burning. The deceased had given her dying declaration which was recorded by the police official (SHO) in the presence of the doctor. Trial court - ~ convicted the respondent relying on the dying F declaration. High Court acquitted him holding that the conviction could not have ·been based on dying declaration as the same was not in accordance with applicable Police Rules relating to recording of dying declaration. Hence the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Police official (PW-20), who recorded the dying declaration, categorically stated that it was not .463 H 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A possible to get a Magistrate to record the dying declaration. The High Court dis-believed him without even recording any reason therefor. The dying declaration was recorded in the presence of a doctor (PW-13). In addition, the evidentiary value of the evidence B of PWs 7, 9 and 10 has not been considered in its proper perspective. [Para 7] [468-D] 1.2. The High Court has concluded that there was no other reliable evidence. This conclusion runs counter to the High Court's observation about the evidence of PWs C 6 and 7 which was held to be credible. The evidence of PWs 8 and 9 provide ample corroboration. [Para 10] [471- F-G] 1.3. Rajasthan Police Rules, 1964 on which the High D Court has placed reliance is at the most a set of ._ - procedural guidelines. That cannot take away the effect of Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872. [Para 1 OJ (471-E] Dalip Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1979 (4) SCC 332; Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar 1983 (1) SCC 211 and E Laxman v. State of Maharashtra 2002 (6) SCC 710, relied on. F G H Munna Raja v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1976 (3) SCC 104, distinguished. Case Law Reference: 1976 (3) sec 104 Distinguished. Para 5 1979 (4) sec 332 Relied on. Para 5 1983 (1) sec 211 Relied on. Para 8 2002 (6) sec 110 Relied on. Para 9 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 305-306 of 2003. . ' STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. CHAMPA LAL 465 From the Judgment & Order dated 25.07.2001 of the High A -l" Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Crl. Appeal No. 400 of 1996. Dr. Manish Singhvi, MG, Milind Kumar and Sandeep ....,.. ) Bajaj for the Appellant. B Sudhir Kulshreshtha for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. The State of Rajasthan has C filed appeals against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowing the appeal filed by the respondent directing his acquittal. Respondent faced trial for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and was D sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Jodhpur. 2. Background facts in a nutshell as projected by the prosecution are as follows: E On 11.12.1995 at about 10.30 p.m. Om Prakash (PW-8) submitted a written report at Police Station, Mahamandir, Jodhpur stating inter-alia that his sister Smt. Pani Devi was married to respondent about twenty five years back. From their wedlock five girls and one boy were born. His sister used to F earn a livelihood and maintain the children. Respondent used to go for earning casually. Respondent used to demand money from her for consuming liquor. Respondent also used to harass and beat her. On the fateful day, when she returned from her job, respondent was consuming liquor. Respondent abused his G sister Pani Devi sayin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.