LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus KISHORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'r l ( _..,.. STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. KISH ORE FEBRUARY 27, 1996 . [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Evidence Act 1872-Section 32. A B Dying declaration-Sole basis f01'-Conviction-Co1mboration by the C FIR and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P. C-Evidentia1y value-Held, dying declaration contains all grains of tmth as they are :ipon- taneously made in expectation of death. Conviction based upon dying declaration--Acceptance by the cowt-Though named in the dying declaration, co-accused-Acquitted- D Held, the acquittal was wrong but does not cast any doubt on the veracity of the dying declaration. Oiminal Procedure Code 1973: Investigation into b1ide buming case--Omission by the Investigating E Officer to send the bumt clothes and other inoiminating mate1ial for chemical examination-Effect-Held, mere act that the Investigating Office Rcom- mitted irregulaTity or illegality during the course of the investigation would not cast doubt on the prosec1ttion case-Nor tn1stw01thy and reliable evidence can be ignored to record acq1tittal on that account. According to the prosecution, the deceased was the wife of respon- dent and mother of one daught~, staying with her in- laws and sisters-in- law. On June 21, 1984 at 2,0 clock in the afternoon, the respondent lit the body of the deceased after pouring kerosene oil on her at the instigations F of his mother. During that time, even her sisters-in-law and daughter were G present at home. The deceased was admitted to the hospital with 80 percent burn injuries. P.W. 6 (S.H.0.) received the telephone information about the inci- dent and admission of the victim at the hospital. PW 6 went to hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased as per Ex. P 16 and drew up H 1103 1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. A the FIR. PW 8, the investigating Officer recorded the statement of the deceased as per Ex. P 19 and sent the requisition to Chief Judicial Magistrate to record her dying de'claration. PWl the Addi. Chief Judicial Magistrate reached the hospital at 10.10 p.m. and waited till 10.50 p.m. for a doctor after sending a nurse for this purpose. When no one turned up, B he proceeded to record the statement of the victim by way of questions and answers under Ex. P 8. Victive died on June 22, 1984. P.W. 7 (the doctor) conducted autopsy and issued post-mortem certificate as per Ex. P. 21. Charges were framed under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against respon- dent and his mother. C The Session Judge belie~·ed all the three dying declarations and giving primacy to Ex. P.8 held the respondent guilty of an offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment but acquitted his mother. The High Court gave benefit of doubt to the respondent on the D ground that th"e Judicial Magistrate did not get any confirmation about the mental condition of the_ deceased before recording Ex. P. 8 and ac- quitted the respondent. The State did not file any appeal against acquittal of respondent No. 2, the mother-in-law. E Hence this appeal by the State. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The statement of the' deceased is clear, coherent and specific. There is no inkling of any vaci~ation or doubt when the deceased F had given answers to the questions put by P.W.1. It is seen that to question no. 2 though the deceased had mentioned the presence of the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the deceased, she bad.clearly put the nail of blame on the husband and and mother-in-law. The omission to mention his name in question no. 2 does not create any doubt since a major role was attributed G only to the respondent. The omission to attribute motive to the respondent is not a material consequence since it was done at the instigation of his mother. [1115-F-H] 2. Ex. P. 8 is the dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. Ex. P.16 is the FIR which reached the court at the earliest. It contained an H elaborate statement given by the deceased to P.W. 6, the SHO. The only y ) \ ...,._ l t STATEv. KISHORE 1105 variation between Ex. P. 8 and Ex. P. 16 is as regards the timings. It must A be remembered that the deceased was an innocent, illiterate, poor lady and was not so much conscious of the time factor. It would be only approximate and could not be accurately described. The difference of timings in this case is not of material consequence since
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.