LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SHRAVAN RAM & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2013) 5 S.C.R. 1076 STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. SHRAVAN RAM & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2007) MAY 1, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Evidence Act, 1872 - s.32 - Multiple dying declarations - Appreciation of - Held: It is not the plurality of the dying c declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case - If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any comJboration but the statement should be consistent throughout - However, if some inconsistencies o are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the Court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not and while scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various E sumJunding facts and circumstances - On facts, there are not only material contradictions in both the dying declarations but also inter-se discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses as well - Due to discrepancies and contradictions between the two dying declarations and also in the absence of any other F reliable evidence, the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction of accused-respondents which calls for no interference by the Supreme Court. A married woman died due to 99% burn injuries. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire G case hinges upon three alleged dying declarations made by the deceased and circumstantial evidence. The first accused is the father~in-law and second accused is the husband. The three dying declarations are: (i) Parcha Bayan of the deceased (P14-A) as recorded by ASI which H 1076 STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHRAVAN RAM 1077 was signed by PW13 (SHO) in the presence of the doctor A who also signed the same; (ii) Dying declaration stated to have been signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and (iii) Dying declaration, as tnade by the deceased, before PW3, a neighbour, which finds a place in the statement (Ex. P6) made by him to the police under B Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW3 stated that the deceased had raised hue and cry after the burn injuries and abused her father-in-law. However, only two dying declarations are on record, C the second one mentioned above was not brought out in evidence. The trial court convicted the accused-respondents under Section 302, IPC and sentenced them for life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court reversed the D conviction and acquitted the respondents, and therefore the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. It is notthe plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can E F be relied upon without any corroboration but the statement should be consistent throughout. However, if some inconsistencies are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the Court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not and while scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, in such a situation, the court has to examine G the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances. [Para 18] [1087-C-F] 1.2. In ttieJ~sta..nt case, there are not only material contradictions Tri both the dying declarations but also H 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. A inter se discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses as well. In the first dying declaration recorded by ASI, signed by PW13, there is no mention of the names of any of the accused persons ~nd the deceased had stated that she could not recognize the person who set her ablaze B even though the declaration was in consonance with Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. [Para 21] [1088-D-F] 1.3. So far as the statement of PW3 recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. marked as Exh. PS is concerned, the C deceased was only abusing her father in law and that was not even corroborated by PW4 or PW5 and PW3 himself turned hostile. Due to discrepancies and contradictions between the two dying declarations and also in the absence of any other reliable evidence, the D High Court is justified in reversing the order of conviction which calls for no interference by this Court. [Para 22]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.