LexSTTE OF RAJASTHAN versus PARTHU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN v. PARTHU SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 B IS.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDl,JJ.1 Penal Code, 1860: s.302-Deceased died of burn injuries-Dying declaration that husband C poured kerosene oil and lit the fire-Conviction by trial court~et aside by High Court-On appeal, held: judgment of conviction can be recorded on basis of dying declaration alone subject to satisfaction of court that same was true and voluntary-For ascertaining same, conrt to look at the circumstances-Husband was alone with deceased when incident took piace- D After incident he was not found-It was for him to show as to how death of deceased took place-In the absence of sufficient and cogent explanations in that behalf, trial court correctly considered same as circumstances against him-Evidence Act, 1872-s.32. E Evidence Act, I 872: s.32-Dying declaration-Made in presence of doctor PW-IO and IO- Doctor attested thumb impression as also statement of deceased before 10- Conviction by trial court by placing reliance on dying declaration-Acquittal by High Court on the ground that no-statement made by doctor that deceased was in fit state of mind to make statement-Correetness of-Held: Not F correct-By attesting statement of deceased, doctor meant that statement was made before 10 in his presence and same was correctly recorded by him- Penal Code, 1860-s.302. Prosecution case was that the wife of appellant had received serious burn G injuries. On receipt of the information, Head Constable PW-6 reached the spot and took her to the hospital. PW-6 recorded her statement which was treated as dying declaration wherein she disclosed that she was burnt by her husband. PW-9, SHO also recorded the statement of the deceased on 8.6.1995. Deceased died on 19.6.1995. Trial Judge relying on the dying II 932 STATEv. PARTHU 933 declarations, held the respondent guilty of commission of offence u/s. 302 A IPC. On appeal, High Court recorded judgment of acquittal holding that no reliance could be placed on the dying declarations as no statement had been made by P.W.10-Dr. 'A' that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a statement before the Investigating Officer P.W.6. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Similar statements in regard to nature of offence have been made in the two dying declarations; although the dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer PW-9 on 8.6.1995 is a bit more detailed one. It B has been recorded by both the Courts below that Dr. 'A' PW-10 was present when the dying declaration was recorded. It is true that in the said dying C declaration, no certificate to the effect that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to have such statement, was subscribed but after recording of the dying declaration was over, the Doctor attested her thumb impression as also her statement before the Investigating Officer. [Para 9) (935-G, ff; 936-A) D 1.2. The High Court commented thereupon opining that there could not be any attestation of such statement. Technically the High Court may be right but what was meant by P.W.10-Dr. 'A' by issuing such a certificate in the· dying declaration was that the statement of the deceased was made by her before the Investigating Officer in his presence and the same has correctly been recorded by the latter, P.W.10-Dr.'A' is a Medical Jurist. He himself E also had inquired about the incident in question from the deceased. She had revealed that a quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife whereafter he had poured kerosene on her and lit the fire. [Para 10) [936-B;C) 2. A judgment of conviction can be recorded on the basis of the dying F declaration alone subject of course to the satisfaction of the Court that the same was true and voluntary. For the purpose of ascertaining truth or voluntariness of the dying declaration, the Court may look to the other circumstances. Apart from the fact that the homicidal nature of death was not disputed by the respondent and furthermore as he in his statement under G Section 313 had raised a positive defence that she died of an accident, the High Court adopted a wrong approach. It is not disputed that the deceased and the appellant were living separately from their family. It has also not been disputed that at the time when the incident occurred, the respondent was in his house together with the deceased. It is furthermore not in dispute that H 934 SUPREME C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.