STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus RAM SAGAR YADAV AND ORS

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 22-01-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
621 
" 
A 
'· ... 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
I';• 
B 
i. 
-. .. 
' '.-
-' ·-·-
_·1 
'_._ 
·.. RAM SAGAR. YADAV AND ORS •. · 
.. 
. (Y.V. Cl!ANDRACHVo .. C.I. AND AMARENDRA NATI! SEN, J.]. 
c 
' 
. . 
' 
) 
.... 
' 
' 
. "'· 
lndion Penal Code.,- s.s. 300, 302 and 3H-Mr1rder and C1'1pablt ltomicldt 1 
not om,,unling It> murder-Dbti~tlon between. 
· ' 
·· , ' 
'.-.• 
Indian E"'ldem:t Att-Evidence-Apprecfatlon of-Dyjnt deefarot/011-lf 
true, whtthtr co1·roboration neces.rary:_DtaJh Caused and/or a1trOci1le1. Perpttra· 
D 
t,dwhllt in police custOdy-Burdtn of proof-Need for ft~xamina1ton by ltgls• 
laturt. 
' · 
' 
.· ' 
_, ... 
Criminal Law- Petty detail$ and minor contr0dicli'1n1 in . evldence-Wht· 
tlrtr can tilt the scale cf justice. 
; . 
Respondent 1 was the Station HOuse Officer and Rtspoadents 2 to 4 were 
attached as constable.i to the Police Station. The prosecution aliegd that a com• -
pJaiot Wai filed againSt tt.e deceased for cattle trespas1 .. The Respondent pursuant to 
the said complaint sought to extort illega1 gratification from the deceased for bush· 
i.Dg up the case. Re-;pondent 2 succeeded in obtaining Rs. 100 and made a fu-rthcr 
demand or Rs 200. The deceased refused to obJige him and made a complaint to 
the Superintendent of Police, who forwarded h to Respondent 1 for jnquiry and . 
report. This iuc:cnsed Respondent l .. The. deceased v.as arrest~ and brought to 
the Police Station by Respondents 3 and 4 at about 10.00 · A.M; Same day at 
about 6.00 P.M. tbe de,eased sucumbed to injuries which were caused to him by, 
Respcndents white he was in their custody. 
· 
· 
j The SessiOnscCollrt tried the roui- RespOndents, convicled c:i~h or them 
under 'se<:tion' 304. Part 2 of tbC: Penal Code wbi:e Respondeiit l wis" also coilvic .. 
· tcd under section 220 of,tbe Penal Gode and all were seDtenccd to ditrefcnt termS ' 
E 
F 
of imprisonment, -
· 
· ' 
··' 
.. 
• 
G 
· The Respondents aprealed to the High. Court and a Sin&lc Judgc set 
aside their order or conviciions and sentences. , · 
~ . 
, , , : 
Allowing the Appeal of the State, 
, '· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985] 2 SC.R. 
HELD: I. It is impossible to sustain the judgment of the High Court 
as it has totally overlooked crucial evidence Jed by the prosecution and taken an 
unrealistic vLw of unequivocal fact~. It bas not even adverted to the reasons 
give-!1 by the trial court for holdin~ the Respondents guilty of the offences of 
which they were convicted. [625B-C] 
2. It is quite clear that upon the evidence led by the pro::.ecution only one 
conclusion is possible, which is, that the Responden s inflicte :I injuries upon 
Brijlal while he was in their custody, thereby causing his death. [635F) 
3. It is well-settled ·that, as a matter of law, a dying declaration can be 
acted upon without corroboration. There is not even a rule of prudence whkh 
has harden d into a rule.of law tjiat a dying declaration c:annot be acted upon 
unless it is corroborated. The primary effort or the Court has to be to find out 
whether the dyjng decJaration is true. If it is, no question of co;roboration arises. 
Ii is only J the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are not clear 
or coov.ncing that the Court may, for its assurance, look for corroboration to the 
dying declaration. [6280-E) 
The instant case, is a typical i11ustratioa of that <Jass of cases in which 
the Court shoi.Ild not hesitate to act on the basis of an uncorroborated dying 
declaration The circumstances leave no doubt that the dying declaration made 
by the deceased to the Judicial Magistrate to the effect tha[ he \Vas beaten by 
Darogah and the constables at the Pqlice Station is true in 1.:very r~spect and it is 
safe to accept tr.e same. [628F; G; 629A-B] 
Khusha/ Rao v. The State of Bombay, [1958] SCR 552, Harba11s Singh v. 
State of Punjab, (1962) Supp. ISCR 104 and Gopafsingh v. State of M.P, [1972) 
3 sec 268, followed. 
4. The distinction b~tween murder and culpable born cide not amounting 
to murder is often lost.sisht of, resulting in undue lib~rality in favour of undeserv-
ing culprits like tbe respondent-police officers. Except in cases covered by five 
exceptions mentioned in section 300 of the P~nal_ Code, culpable homicide is 
·murder if the act by which the death is cau~ed is done with the.intention of caus-
ing death, or if-the act falls within any of the three clauses of section 300, 
namely, 2ndly, 3rdly and 4thly. [630 F·G] 
The inst

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