LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SANTOSH SAVITA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 11 S.C.R. 765 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SANTOSH SAVITA (Criminal Appeal No. 1303 of 2006) AUGUST 06, 2013 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - Prosecution for murder - Conviction u/s. · 302 by trial court and acquittal C therefrom by the High Court - On appeal, held: In view of the two dying declarations implicating the accused, and the same having been corroborated by the circumstantial evidence regarding the recovery of articles and evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 8; the prosecution case is proved - However, in absence D of proof regarding intention of the accused for causing death, the accused can be held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder - His conviction altered to one u/s. 304 (Part II) - His sentence, in the circumstances of the case, reduced to period already undergone i.e. six years with fine E of Rs. 20001- - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32 - Dying declaration. F The respondent-accused was prosecuted uls. 302 IPC. The prosecution case was that the deceased who was allegedly burnt by the accused had given two dying declarations to the doctors in the hospital in which she was admitted. In both the dying declarations, the deceased had mentioned that the accused poured kerosene on her and lighted her saree with a matchstick. Accused also produced defence witnesses, who stated G that the deceased had burnt herself. Trial court convicted the accused uls. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20001-. High Court reversed 765 H 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R A the order of trial court and acquitted him. Hence the present appeal by the State. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the present case, the deceased has 8 made two dying declarations (Ext. P-4 and Ext. P-10) and has consistently named the respondent as the person for the cause of her burn injuries and the two dying declarations are corroborated both by circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. Hence, even though the C Magistrate was not requisitioned for recording the dying declarations, the High Court ought not to have discarded the dying declarations. [Para 19] [780-G-H; 781-A] · 1.2. The dying declaration (Ext. P-4) was recorded by D PW-9, within two to three hours of the incident. This dying declaration was recorded in the presence of Medical Jurist (PW-4) when the deceased was in a condition to make a statement. The High Court appears to have doubted this dying declaration because PW-4 has stated E in his cross-examination that the deceased told him that she had got burnt on her own and he has also made a note in the injury report (Ext.P-3) that the deceased had got burnt on her own. The High Court lost sight of the fact that PW-4 has conducted the medical examination of F the deceased at the hospital and, as has been stated by PW-4 in his evidence, the injury report (Ext. P-3) had been prepared before the dying declaration (Ext.P-4) was recorded. It is perhaps for this reason that in Ext.P-3, after the deceased gave her statement (Ex. P-4) to PW-9 in the G presence of PW-4 that PW-4 corrected the injury report (Ext.P-3) by scoring out the words "by herself'. In other words, after PW-4 came to know later from the statement of the deceased recorded by PW-9 in his presence that the deceased did not get burnt by herself, he corrected H the injury report (Ext.P-3). The High Court has failed to STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SANTOSH SAVITA 767 appreciate the evidence in this light. [Para 13) [777-F-H; A 778-A-C] 1.3. In the second dying declaration (Ext.P-10) also the deceased has named the respondent as having quarreled with her and as a result she has suffered the 8 burn injuries. It is also found from the evidence of PW- 11 that the deceased was in a condition to make the dying declaration. It is true that in patient case-sheet (Ext. P-13) of the deceased, PW-11 has written that it is a case of homicidal burns while she was preparing meal on stove four days back, but on a reading of Ext.P-13 it is C found that it is also mentioned "her husband's younger brother, (respondent), quarrel with her". The High Court was, therefore, not right in coming to the finding that there were inconsistencies in the two dying declarations (Ext.P-4 and Ext.P-10). [Para 14] [778-D-G] D 1.4. The two dying declarations of the deceased, Ex. P-4 and Ex.P-10, are corroborated by r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.