LexSURINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1019 SURINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 2009) NOVEMBER 21, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.) Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 32 - Dying declaration - Appreciation and admissibility of - Discussed. Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3048 and 498A - Death of married woman due to burn injuries - Victim gave declaration/ statement squarely blaming her husband - Statement/ declaration was recorded by a police official in the presence A B c of two doctors - Conviction of victim's husband i.e. the appellant by Courts below - Justification of - Held: The dying D declaration of the victim was voluntary and truthful - It was not made under any pressure - The dying declaration contained facts which would not have been known to strangers like the police official or the two doctors - The details given by the victim in the dying declaration were indicative of her E consciousness and her fitness to make a statement - The dying declaration was truthful inasmuch as the victim did not introduce any exaggerations and narrated only the basic and important facts, namely, about the persistent demand for dowry by the appellant- She also truthfully stated that she had F been telling her mother-in-law and brothers-in-law that appellant was demanding dowry and that they had asked him not to make such demands - The victim did not implicate anybody other than the appellant and truthfully stated that since she was fed up with the persistent demand of dowry G made by him, she poured kerosene oil on herself and set herself on fire - Consequently, conviction of appellant upheld - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.32. 1019 H 1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A The appellant's wife was admitted in the hospital with 90% burn injuries. 'M', Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of appellant's wife in vernacular in which she squarely blamed the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant's wife 8 succumbed to her injuries. The Trial Judge held that the evidence indicated that the appellant had been demanding dowry from his wife and since she had not brought sufficient dowry, he mistreated her; that there was no reason to disbelieve the C dying declaration given by the appellant's wife that she was driven by the appellant to commit suicide; that the dying declaration was voluntary and that it was recorded by 'M' in the presence of two doctors, and accordingly convicted the appellant under Section 304-8 and 498-A D IPC and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-8 IPC and 3 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. E The case of the appella:it is that his wife had accidentally caught fire and therefore it was not a case of suicide. The appellant contended before this Court that the dying declaration given by his wife should not be accepted. The reasons given for this were that she had 90% muscle deep burns and as per the post-mortem F report the superficial skin had peeled off and that with such a high degree of burns, it cannot be said that the appellant's wife was in a condition to make a statement and secondly she could not have signed the statement or even affixed her thumb impression. It was submitted G that the dying declaration was a very detailed one and it is not expected that a person in that condition could make such a detailed dying declaration. The question which therefore arose for consideration H SURINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1021 in the present appeal was whether the dying declaration A given by the appellant's wife to the effect that the appellant had driven her to commit suicide should be accepted or not. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There are a large number of decisions where persons with 90% burns have given a dying declaration and that has been accepted. [Para 16] [1028- C] Amit Kumar v. State of Punjab (2010) 12 SCC 285: 2010 (9) SCR 1088; Paniben v. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474: 1992 (2) SCR 197; Govindappa v. State of Karnataka (2010) 6 SCC 533: 2010 (6) SCR 962; Sukanti Moharana v. State B c of Orissa (2009) 9 SCC 163: 2009 (11) SCR 996; D Kamalavva v. State of Karnataka (2009) 13 SCC 614: 2009 (11) SCR 498 and Satish Ambanna Bansode v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 217: 2009 (3) SCR 1166 - relied on. 2. There is no format prescribed for reco
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.