STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus KARUPPASAMY

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 481 · Decided: 20-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 481 
,.._--f 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
A 
(" 
v. 
KARUPPASAMY 
· (Crimi_nal Appeal No. 573 of 2002) 
NOVEMBER 20, 2008 
B 
lit. + 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Conviction under - Death · c 
of wife due to burn injuries - Quarrel between the parties over 
husband's illicit relations - Dying declaration recorded by 
Magistrate implicating the husband, having poured kerosene 
on her and setting her ablaze - Evidence of related witnesses 
as to .declaration by deceased - Conviction by trial court -
However, set aside by High Court - Sustainability of - Held: 
D 
Not sustainable - High Court discarded the dying declaration 
recorded by Magistrate as the Magistrate went by the version 
f 
of the doctor and did not independently enquire from the 
deceased whether she was in a fit condition to make 
statement, which was clearly erroneous - It also discarded the 
E 
evidence of other witnesses as also medical officer without 
giving reasons - Finding that accused brought the intimation 
from hospital to police station about the incident was contrary 
- Thus, order of High Court set aside. 
According to the prosecution case, husband of K 
F 
- _.._..., 
had illicit relations with P. There were quarrels between 
the husband and K-wife. On the fateful day, the husband 
poured kerosene on K and set her on fire. K sustained 
burn injuries and was taken to the hospital. PW 8-Medical G 
Officer found extensive burn injuries on the person of K 
-+-
and sent intimation to the police as also to the Magistrate. 
The Magistrate reached the hospital. PW 8 certified that 
K was conscious and oriented to give her statement. 
Magistrate recorded her statement. PW 12-constable also 
481 
H 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A recorded K's statement. PW-12 then sent intimation 
through phone to investigating police station. 
Subsequently K died. F!R was registered u/s. 302 IPC. The 
doctor conducted the post mortem and opined that the 
deceased died due to the burn injuries. Trial court relying 
B on the oral evidence ·of PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6-mother, 
brothers and other's, as to declaration by deceased about 
the cause of her death· implicating the husband and the 
dying declaration recorded by PW-11-Magistrate, 
convicted the husband u/s.302 IPC and awarded life 
c 
imprisonme,~t. However, High Court set aside the 
conviction a~ th~ prosecution case was full of suspicious 
circumstanclesi dt discarded the dying declaration 
recorded by PW 11, evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,"6 and 
8. It noted that the FIR disclosed that the husband 
0 brought the intimation from the hospital to the police. 
Hence the: present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
. HELD: 1.1. The conclusions of the High Court that 
E PW 11 ~Magistrate should not- have gone by what the 
doctor said and should have made independent 
enquiries is an absurd conclusion. It is not understood 
as to what the High Court meant by observing that PW 
11 should have found out from the deceased as to 
F whether she was conscious, oriented and was in a fit 
condition to give the statement. The High Court was of 
the view th~t the ,evidence of PW 11 shows that her 
satisfaction was a subjective satisfaction solely on the 
basis of the opinion of the Doctor. There _is nothing wrong 
G in such a satisfaction being arrived at because the doctor 
is an appropriate person to certify on that aspect. (Paras 
5, 6 and -7] (488-8-D-E-G] 
H 
1.2. High Court recorded the finding that the FIR 
disclosed that the accused brought the intimation from 
+ • 
J 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU v. KARUPPASAMY 
483 
• I'--; 
the hospital to the police station. The factual position is 
A 
clearly to the contrary. The accused did not take the 
intimation because PW 12 who was working as Grade I 
constable at the out post police station attached to the 
medical college hospital received intimation from the 
hospital. According to PW 12, after receiving the 
B 
intimation he went to the hospital, examined the deceased
1 
\ 
-.+ 
who was undergoing treatment for burn injuries. The 
deceased gave the statement regarding the occurrence 
which was recorded and he sent the intimation through, 
the phone to the police regarding the substance of the c 
statement. The High Court also did not assign any reason ! 
as to why the declaration made before PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 
6 was unreliable. It discarded the evidence of PW 8-, 
doctor without even indicating 

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