LexSTATE OF U.P. versus VEER SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
STATE OF U.P.
v.
VEER SINGH AND ORS.
APRIL 28, 2004
B
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 :
Ss. 3021149, 3071149-Accused killing members of two families-
C Evidence of surviving victim-Her statement recorded as dying dec/aration-
Tria/ Court relying on her evidence, convicting 5 accused and acquitting 3-
High Court acquitting the said five accused also holding that their names
were not mentioned in the dying declaration-Held, judgment of High Court
indefensible as it did not consider other evidence on record-Matter remitted
D back to High Court for decision afresh.
Evidence Act, 1872 :
Ss. 32, 155 and 157-Statement recorded as dying declaration-Maker
of statement survives-Nature and evidentiary value of the statement-Held,
E it is not a statement under s.32 of the Act but a statement in terms of s. 164
Cr.P.C.-It can be used/or purposes of corroboration u!s 157 and/or purpose
of contradiction u/s 155 of the Act-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-
s.164.
On the information given by PW 4 that all the members of her family
F and another family were killed by the accused persons, the complainant got
registered an FIR. The trial court relying on the evidence of PW 4 and her
statement purported to be the dying declaration, acquitted three and convicted
five of the accused inter alia under ss. 302/149 and 307/149 IPC. The
convicted accused, namely, the respondents, filed appeal before the High
Court, which acquitted them holding that though in the FIR their names were
G mentioned, but in the dying declaration they were not named. Aggrieved, the
State filed the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. When maker of purported dying declaration survives, the same
H
790
STATEOFU.P.v. VEERSINGH[PASAYAT,J.]
791
is not statement under s. 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but is a statement A
in terms ofs.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It can be used
under s. 157 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of corroboration and under
s. 155 thereof for the purpose of contradiction. (794-A-BJ
Ramprasad v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 5 SCC 30; Sunil Kumar
and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT (1997) 2 SC 1 and Gentela B
Vijayavardhan Rao v. State of A.P., (1996) 6 Supreme 356, referred to.
2. A bare reading of the statement of PW-4 shows that the same did not
relate to the entire incident. Only one question was asked as to who had caused
injury to her. There was no occasion for the High Court to hold that because
respondents were not named in the so-called dying declaration, accusation
against them has not been established. PW-4 in her evidence in Court has
clearly stated as to why she had given a limited answer. The High Court has
c
not even considered the effect thereof. There was no proper analysis of the
evidence on record and the decision was rendered on misreading of the
evidence. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for decision afresh D
in accordance with law. [794-C-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 727-
729of1998.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.12.97 of the Allahabad High Court E
in Crl. A. Nos. 749 and 751 of 1996 and Govt. Appeal No. 1341of1996.
N.S. GAHLOT for Kamlendra Mishra for the Appellant.
Lokesh Kumar for M.K. Garg for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. The State of Uttar Pradesh questions legality of
the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
directing acquittal of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused').
F
13 persons were claimed to be responsible for the death of large number of G
persons including small children. Of them, one, namely, Mahendra died during
trial. After commitment, they faced trial in the Court of Third Additional
Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. While the trial was in progress, 4 of them
absconded and 8 persons have been tried. Three of them, namely, Hardeep,
Sinder Singh and Nishan Singh were acquitted by the Trial Court, while the
rest five who are respondents herein were convicted for the offences H
792
Sl{PREME COURT REPORTS (2004) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
1860 (in short 'IPC). They were also found guilty under Section 307 read wi_th
Section 149 IPC, and under Section 452 IPC. For the offence relatable to
Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC they were sentenced five years riforouExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.