SUNDER LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 07-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUNDER LAL 
v. 
STA TE OF RAJASTHAN 
MAY 7, 2007 
B [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,P.K.BALASUBRAMANYANANDD.K.JAIN,JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 299, 300, 302 and 304. 
Murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Distinction 
C between-When the deceased was sleeping in his house the accused inflicted 
a blow on his head by a 'Gandasi' with the intention to kill him and also 
inflicted injuries on his hand-When the deceased cried, some person came 
but the accused ran away-The occurrence was said to have taken place at 
night with practically no light-The deceased was taken to the hospital and 
D a case was registered under S~. 307, 323, 448 read with S. 34 /PC on the 
basis of the statement of the deceased-The deceased succumbed to the 
injuries and the case was converted for an offence punishable under S. 302 
/PC-The trial court found the evidence to be cogent and credible-The 
> 
dying declaration was found to be reliable-The trial court accordingly 
convicted the accused under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo 
E imprisonment for life-The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence-
Correctness of-Held: Jn the scheme of the /PC 'culpable homicide is genus 
and 'murder' its specie-All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-
versa-Generally, 'culpable homicide' sans the 'special characteristics of 
murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'-lt is the degree of 
F probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the 
gravest, medium or the lowest degree-The distinction lie5 between a bodily 
injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary 
course of nature to cause death-The distinction is fine but real and, if 
overlooked, may result in miscarriage of justice-The occurrence took place 
in the night in almost dark conditions with feeble light and attack was made 
G indiscriminately and, therefore, the appropriate conviction would be under 
Section 304 Part /, /PC. 
Evidence Act, 1872: Section 32. 
H 
76 
SUNDER LAL v. STA TE OF RAJASTHAN 
77 
"Dying declaration "-Meaning and evidentiary value of-Conviction A 
solely based on-Permissibility of-Held: If after careful scrutiny the Court 
is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any effort to 
induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and 
consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it a basis of conviction, 
even if there is no corroboration-It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule 
of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction B 
unless it is corroborated. 
Criminal Trial: 
Identification of accused-Occurrence took place at night with 
practically no light-The deceased and the accused were known to each C 
other-Possibility of the deceased identifying the accused-Held: If persons 
are known to each other, from the manner of walk. talking and peculiar 
feature of gait identification is possible-The courts below have rightly held 
that the deceased could have easily identified the accused under these 
circumstances. 
Words & Phrases:" 
Sufficient in the ordinary course ofnature"-Meaning of-Jn the context 
of Clause (b) Section 299 of the Penal Code, 1860. 
"Likely to cause death"-Meaning of-In the context of Clause (3) 
Section 300 of the Penal Code, 1860. 
Maxim: 
D 
E 
"Nemo moriturus proesumitur mentiri"-Meaning of-Explained 
F 
According to the prosecution, when the deceased was sleeping in his 
house the accused-appellant inflicted a blow on his head by a 'Gandasi' with 
the intention to kill him and also inflicted injuries on his hand. The co-accused 
also inflicted injuries on his legs. When the deceased cried, some person 
came but both the accused persons ran away. The deceased was taken to the G 
hospital and a case was registered under Sections 307, 323, 448 read with 
Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of the statement of the 
deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries and the case was converted 
for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 
The trial court found the evidence to be cogent and credible. The dying H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 6 S.C.R. 
A declaration was found to be reliable. The trial court accordingly convicted 
!;' 
the accused persons under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 
sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court affirmed 
the conviction and sentence. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the accused, it was contended t

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