SUDHAKAR AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 17-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUDHAKAR AND ANR. 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
JULY 17, 2000 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, R.P. SETHI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 32(/). 
Dying declaration-"Circumstances of the transaction "-Statement by 
deceased-Effect of-Deceased gave a statement to the police l ! days after 
the incident in which she alleged that she was raped by the accused-She 
committed suicide 5 112 months later-There was no evidence to suggest that 
A 
B 
c 
the deceased had committed suicide due to the humiliation suffered by her D 
on account of rape-Moreover, her statement did not suggest that a person 
under normal circumstance would commit suicide after a period of 5 112 
months-Held: Statement of the deceased is admissible as to the cause of the 
death or the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death-
/I should be sufficiently or closely connected with the actual transaction--
Prosecution should prove the making of the statement as a fact-If it is in E 
writing the scribe must be produced and if it is verbal the person who heard 
the deceased making the statement must be examined-Jn the circumstances 
of the case, the statement does not constitute dying declaration. Penal Code, 
1860: Sections 376134 and 306134. 
Rape and suicide-Accused persons allegedly raped a school teacher- F 
Victim made a statement to the police 11 days after the incident in which she 
narrated the circumstances regarding the rape-Victim committed suicide 
allegedly due to humiliation on account of rape after 5 112 months-Held: 
Statement of the deceased is not dying declaration and inadmissible in 
evidence-Moreover, delay in lodging FIR, medical examination, non- G 
examination of material witnesses and turning hostile of witnesses assume 
importance-As the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt 
the guilt of the accused. they are entitled to acquittal-Since the charge 
under S.376 is not proved suicide due to humiliation also not established-
Hence, conviction under Ss.306134 not sustainable. 
507 
H 
A 
B 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
Maxim: 
"Nemo moriturus praer~mitur mentire "-Meaning and applicability 
of 
. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Circumstances of the transaction"-Meaning of-In the context of 
S.32(/) of the Evidence Act, 1872. 
The appellants-accused were convicted by the Sessions Court for 
offences under Sections 376/34 and 306/34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The 
C Sessions Court relied upon the statement made by the deceased before the 
Assistant Police Inspector treating the same as dying declaration. being 
admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The High 
Court confirmed the conviction. Hence this appeal. 
D 
According to the prosecution, the victim, a school teacher, was allegedly 
raped by the appellants (headmaster and a co-teacher) of the same school on 
9-7-1994. The victim narrated the incident to her mother, brother and uncle 
and subsequently to her father who came back home after a few days. The 
matter was reported to the police 11 days after the incident. The police 
recorded the statement of the victim and on that basis a crime report was 
E registered. The doctor who examined the victim reported that she had been 
subjected to sexual intercourse in the recent past. Having failed to withstand 
the humiliation to which tl1e victim was subjected on account of rape committed 
by the appellants, she was stated to have committed suicide. Autopsy was 
conducted on the same date and the cause of death was reported as poisoning. 
F In view of the subsequent development additional charge under Section 306 
read with Section 34 IPC was added against the appellants. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Admissibility of the statement of the deceased before the 
G Assistant Police Inspector is of paramount importance for deciding the present 
appeal. If the statement is held to be admissible in evidence, being the dying 
declaration of the deceased, the appellants may not escape their liability to 
conviction and sentence, as there exists other corroborative evidence against 
them. However, if the aforesaid report/statement is not admissible in evidence, 
the appellants may be entitled to all consequential legal benefits. In that event 
H the offence of rape may not be held to have been proved against them and if 
SUDHAKAR v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
509 
rape is not proved, the appellants cannot be held responsible for the A 
commi

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