THE STATE OF JHARKHAND versus SHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI @ PANDAV RAI

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 1033 · Decided: 31-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1033
1033
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1033
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
v.
 SHAILENDRA KUMAR RAI @ PANDAV RAI
(Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2022)
OCTOBER 31, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32(1) – Dying declaration – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss.302,376,341 and 448 – Victim was raped and set
on fire – Respondent was convicted u/ss. 302, 341, 376,448 by the
Sessions Court onthebasis of dying declaration of the victim, and
sentenced – Judgment set aside by High Court inter alia holding that
the statement made by the deceased is not admissible as a dying
declaration, respondent was acquitted – On appeal, held: Post-
mortem report concludes that the cause of death is septicemia caused
by the burn injuries sustained by the victim – Statement of the victim
satisfies the conditions laid down in s.32(1) as it relates to both, the
cause of death as well as to the circumstances of the transaction
which resulted in death – Her statement clearly described that the
respondent poured kerosene on her and set her on fire – Statement
of the deceased satisfies the conditions in s.32(1) and is itself a
relevant fact –It is a dying declaration – Prosecution proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of High Court set aside
– Sessions Court’s judgment convicting therespondent and the order
sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence
punishable u/s.302 and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the
offence punishable u/s.376 is restored – Sentences to run
concurrently– Evidence Act, 1872 –s.60.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32(1) – Dying declaration –
Admissibility and probative value of –Held: There is no rule
mandating the corroboration of the dying declaration through
medical or other evidence, when the dying declaration is not
otherwise suspicious – Further, although a dying declaration ought
to ideally be recorded by a Magistrate if possible, it cannot be said
that dying declarations recorded by police personnel are
inadmissible for that reason alone – The issue of whether a dying
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
declaration recorded by the police is admissible must be decided
after considering the facts and circumstances of each case– Also,
the fact that the dying declaration is not in the form of questions
and answers does not impact either its admissibility or its probative
value – In the present case, the dying declaration was recorded in
the victim’s words and read out to her, after which she affixed her
signature to it– Victim was in a competent state of mind when she
made the statement– It was made voluntarily and is true.
Criminal Law – Evidence –Witnesses – Victim raped and set
on fire – Family members of the victim-deceased and other persons
known to her were declared hostile – Effect of, if any on
prosecution’s case – Factors responsible for witnesses turning hostile
– Discussed.
Penal Code, 1860 – s.375 – Two finger test – Deprecation of
– Directions issued to Union Government and the State Governments
–Held: Any person who conducts the “two-finger test” or per
vaginum examination (while examining a person alleged to have
been subjected to a sexual assault) in contravention of the directions
of Supreme Court shall be guilty of misconduct – Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act 2013 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.53A.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.The statement of the deceased is relevant under
Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
a. The victim died due to the burn injuries sustained by her
The post-mortem report prepared by Dr. R Mahto (PW 8)
states that the cause of death of the victim was septicemia, which
was a result of the burn injuries sustained by the victim. The
defence has sought to assail the veracity of this finding. In
response to a question posed to him during cross-examination,
Dr. R Mahto stated that he distinctly remembered that the doctor
who was treating the deceased referred her to Bokaro Burn
Hospital. However, she was not shifted to this hospital. The
unnamed doctor who supposedly referred the deceased to Bokaro
Burn Hospital was not named as a witness in the proceedings
before the Sessions Judge and was not called to depose in
evidence. Counsel appearing for respondent in the proceedings
before the High Court argued that the fact that the deceased was
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
not shifted to Bokaro Burn Hospital was an intervening
circumstance. He urged that consequently, it was not proved that
the deceased died bec

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