UKARAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1052 · Decided: 10-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UKARAM 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
APRIL 10, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860-Sections 302-326 and 498A-<:onviction of 
~ 
accused for murder of his wife and minor daughter by setting on them onfire-
Conviction based on wife's dying declaration-She was suffering from mental 
C 
illness-Reliability of the dying declaration-Held, Dying declaration not 
reliable as prosecution failed to prove its validity-<:onviction set aside-
Evidence Act, I 872-Section 32. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Appellant was convicted for murdering his wife and minor daughter 
by setting them on fire. The conviction was based on the dying declaration 
made by his wife. He was sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court. 
High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended that the deceased was suffering from men-
tal illness which had prompted her to end her life and that of her daughter; 
and that the prosecution has not taken any steps to ascertain at the time of 
her making the dying declaration that she was not suffering from mental 
illness. 
The prosecution contended that the dying declaration was recorded 
only after the doctor had declared the deceased to be fit to make the 
statement and its genuineness cannot be doubted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, yet 
it is worthwhile to note that as the make of the statement is not subjected to 
cross-examination, it is essential for the Court to insist that the dying 
declaration should be of such nature as to inspire full confidence of the 
Court in its correctness. The Court is obliged to rule out the possibility of 
the statement being the result of either tutoring, prompting or vindictive 
or product of imagination. Before relying upon a dying declaration, the 
Court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to 
H 
make the statement. Once the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration 
1052 
•' 
UKA RAM v. STATE 
1053 
was true, voluntary and not influenced by any extraneous consideration, it 
A 
can 
base 
its 
conviction 
without 
any corroboration as 
rule requiring corroboration is not a rule of law but only a rule of pru-
dence. [1056-A-C] 
Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, [1970) 2 SCR 113 and· Dandu 
Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P., [1999] 7 SCC 69, relied on. 
2.1. The prosecution is ,under a legal obligation to prove its case 
beyond all reasonable doubts and the accused is only to probabilise his 
defence. From the evidence on record, the plea regarding the mental 
condition and illness of the deceased was not an after-thought in the 
instant case. During the whole trial, the appellant has been trying to cross-
examine the witnesses to probabilise that the deceased was suffering from 
mental illness which could be a reason for her to commit suicide or alter-
natively the dying declaration cannot be held to be voluntarily made or not 
made under any extraneous influences. In her dying declaration, the 
deceased had not referred to any reason which allegedly prompted the 
appellant to commit the crime. [1057-E-F; 1058-B] 
2.2. The prosecution had not proved, beyond doubt, that the dying 
declaration was true, voluntary and not influenced by any extraneous 
consideration. Despite knowing the fact that the deceased was a mental 
patient, the investigation agency did not take any precaution to ensure that 
the incident was suicidal or homicidal. The probability of the deceased 
committing suicide bas not been eliminated. There also exists a doubt 
about the mental condition of the deceased at the time she made dying 
declaration. The medical certificate only states to her physical condition to 
make a statement but does not refer to her mental condition even at that 
time. The Trial Court and the High Court appear to have ignored this 
aspect of the matter while convicting and sentencing the appellant. It is a 
fit case in which the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. [1058-C-E] 
B 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 749 
G 
of 2000. 
From the Judgment and order dated 11.8.98 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.Crl. Jail A. No. 81 of 1996. 
Ms. Minakshi Vij, (A.C.) for the Appellant. 
H 
1054 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Sushi! Kr. Jain, A. Misra, Ms. Alijali Doshi and A.P. Dhamija for the 
-f 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SETIII, J. Solely

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