SUBHASH SONI & ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 06-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 8 S.C.R. 136 
A 
SUBHASH SONI & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF M.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2008) 
B 
MAY 06, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
• 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s.34 - Death due to armed 
c assault - PW1 's brother found lying injured on the road -
Taken to hospital in car of PW4 - On way to hospital, PW4 
heard him telling PW1 that appellants had assaulted him with 
a sword - Death of PW1 's brother in hospital - Conviction of 
appellants on basis of dying declaration made by PW1 's 
D brother while being taken to hospital - Propriety of - Held: 
Proper - On facts, the conclusions of Courts below that 
deceased was not unconscious and was in a position to give 
name of the assailants while he was being taken to hospital 
cannot be faulted - PW4, an independent witness, h3d no 
E reason to falsely implicate the appellants - His statement was 
categorical - Conviction accordingly upheld. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32 - Dying declaration -
Appreciation of - Held: Once the Court is satisfied that the 
F 
declaration was true and voluntary, it can base conviction on 
the same without any further corroboration - Rule requiring 
corroboration is merely a rule of prudence~ 
According to the prosecution, PW1 's brother was 
found lying injured on the road whereupon he was taken 
G to the Hospital in the car of PW4 and on way to the 
Hospital, PW4 heard him telling PW1 that the appellants 
had assaulted him with a sword. PW1's brother 
succumbed to his injuries in course of treatment at the 
hospital. 
H 
136 
t 
-> 
SUBHASH SONI & ANR. v. STATE OF M.P. 
137 
Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 and 
A 
the purported oral dying declaration made ':ly deceased, 
the trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 
read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court held that the 
evidence of PWs.2 and 3 was not credible, but by placing 
reliance upon the purported oral dying declaration, 
B 
upheld the conviction of the appellants. 
In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that after 
having discarded the version of PWs 2 and 3, the High 
Court should not have placed reliance on the so-called 
C 
dying declaration. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Though a dying declaration is entitled to 
great weight, the accused has no power of cross- o 
examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the 
truth as an obligation of oath. This is the reason the court 
also insists that the dying declaration should be of such 
a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its 
correctness. The court has to be on guard that the 
E 
statement of the deceased was not as a result of either 
tutoring, or prompting or a product of imagination. The 
court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in 
a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and 
identify the assailant. Once the court is satisfied that the 
declaration was true and voluntary, it can base its 
conviction 
on the same without any further 
corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule 
F 
of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole 
basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule 
requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. [Para 
G 
5] [142-8-E] 
Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474; Munnu 
Raja v. State of M.P. (1976 (3) SCC 104; State of U.P. v. Ram 
H 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC 552; Ramawati Devi v. State of 
Bihar 1983 (1) SCC211; K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public 
Prosecutor (1976) 3 SCC 618; Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. 
(1974) 4 SCC 264; KakeSingh v. State of M.P. (1981) Supp. 
SCC 25; Ram Manorath v.State of U.P. (1981) 2 SCC 654; 
B State of Maharashtra v.Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu (1980) 
Supp. SCC 455; Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar (1980) 
Supp.sec 769; Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P. (1988 Supp. 
SCC 152; State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan 1989 (3) SCC 390 
and Mohan/al Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra 
c (1982) 1 sec 700, referred to. 
2. In the instant case, it could not be said that while 
taking the deceased to the hospital, PW1 and PW4 could 
not have spoken to him or that the deceased was in an 
unconscious condition. Place of injuries were thigh and 
D leg. Therefore, loss of unconscious can be progressive. 
Therefore, the conclusions of the trial Court and the High 
Court that the deceased was not unconscious and was 
in a position to give name of the assailants while he was 
being ta

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