LexTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus RAMJAN KHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1876 : 2024 INSC 823 The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2129 of 2014) 25 October 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar* and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of the respondents-accused under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC. Headnotes† Evidence – Dying declaration, allegedly made to a close relative – Reliance upon – When not proper – Respondents were convicted inter alia relying on the dying declaration allegedly made to the mother of the deceased (PW-8) – Conviction set aside by High Court – Correctness: Held: Oral dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness – Dying declaration is not a strong piece of evidence and therefore, when it is verbal and that too, allegedly made to a close relative, it ought to be treated with care and caution – In the present case, the trial Court dealt with the same without due care and caution – Prosecution attempted to establish the existence of an oral dying declaration through the evidence of PW-8, the mother of the deceased- informant – However, neither in the FIR nor in her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., PW-8 stated about the oral dying declaration made to her by the deceased – Except her statement in the Court there is no evidence in that regard – High Court justified in taking note of the serious omissions in the oral testimony of PW-8 and discrediting it – Further, the eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-17 did not support the case of the prosecution and also the omissions on part of PWs 5 and 9 (minor brothers of the deceased) amounted to material contradiction going into the core of the prosecution’s case – In view of the omissions and contradictions, the oral testimonies of the witnesses are not reliable – Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the respondents * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 1877 The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors. beyond reasonable doubt – Respondents entitled to benefit of doubt, acquitted – Judgment of the High Court not interfered with. [Paras 17, 20, 27-30] Criminal Law – FIR: Held: FIR is an important document but, not a substantial piece of evidence – Even though it is not an encyclopedia containing chronicle of all intricate and minute details, it could be used to corroborate its maker viz., the informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Evidence Act to establish whether he is a trustworthy witness or not – Whether the omission(s) is one which seriously impeaches the credibility of the witness and is sufficient to reject the testimony of the informant would depend upon whether it is of an important fact and whether that fact was within the knowledge of the informant. [Paras 14, 15] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374 – Appeals from convictions – Acquittal – Appeal against acquittal – Interference with, when – Discussed. [Paras 6, 7, 8] Case Law Cited Jai Karan & Ors. v. State of U.P. [2003] Supp. 4 SCR 995 : (2003) 12 SCC 655; Govindaraju v. State by Sivaramapuram PS [2012] 5 SCR 67 : (2012) 4 SCC 722; State of U.P. v. Dharmaraj and Anr. (2003) 9 SCC 39; Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. v. Tapan Kumar Singh [2003] 3 SCR 485 : (2003) 6 SCC 175; State of UP v. Naresh & Ors. [2011] 4 SCR 1176 : (2011) 4 SCC 324; Lalitha Kumari v. Government of UP & Ors. [2013] 14 SCR 713 : (2014) 2 SCC 1; Amish Devgan v. UOI & Ors. [2020] 14 SCR 198 : (2021) 1 SCC 1; Dharma Rama Bhagare v. State of Maharashtra [1973] 3 SCR 92 : (1973) 1 SCC 537; Anil Phukan v. State of Assam [1993] 2 SCR 389 : (1993) 3 SCC 282; Chandu Bhai Shana Bhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1982 SC 1022 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Dying declaration made allegedly to a close relative; Ocular evidence; Benefit of doubt; Verbal/Oral dying declaration; Dying 1878 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports declaration not a strong piece of evidence; Eyewitnesses; Material contradiction; Omissions and contradictions; Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt; FIR not a substantial piece of evidence; FIR not encyclopedia; Appeal against acquittal. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 2129 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2013 of the High Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.