VIJAYA versus STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 15-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
367
VIJAYA
v.
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1573 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 32, 157 – Code of Criminal Procedure
– s. 164 – Dying declaration – Victim survived – Statement u/s.164
Cr.P.C. – Prosecution case that appellant consumed a poisonous
substance, which she also administered to her 10 months old
daughter – They were taken to hospital – Appellant’s dying
declaration was recorded – Appellant survived but her baby died –
Appellant’s husband reported matter to the police, which led to
regsitration of FIR u/ss. 302 and 309 IPC – Appellant’s husband
(PW1) and her father-in-law (PW5), both turned hostile during the
trial – Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences u/ss.
304(1) and 309 of the IPC – The appeal filed by the appellant
against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court – The
question arises for consideration before the Supreme Court, whether
it is tenable to uphold the conviction of the appellant solely on the
basis of her purported dying declaration which also appears to
have been classified as a statement u/s. 164 of the Cr.P.C.,
considering that appellant has denied making any statement? –
Held: The subsequent denial by the appellant of the statement
attributed to her is of relevance – Appellant has attributed her initial
statement, when she had regained consciousness in the hospital, to
influencing from the police who allegedly convinced her that they
would apprehend the individuals who had offered her daughter
and her the tainted honey, and also recover the jewelry that these
unidentified persons had stolen – However, she claimed that they
asked her to remain silent about these details and simply convey
that the two of them had consumed poisonous substance – This has
an impact on the genuineness of the initial statement made by the
appellant combined with the subsequent hostile turn taken by some
witnesses (PW1 and PW5) – Also, guilt of the appellant not tallying
easily with her continuing marriage to PW1 and her fostering of
two children after death of her first born – This creates a reasonable
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 367
367
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
doubt regarding appellant’s conviction – Further, there were issues
of contention that, were not adequately addressed – The same
benefits the appellant – Therefore, judgments of the trial Court and
the High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. At the outset, the subsequent denial by the
appellant of the statement attributed to her is of relevance. It
further appears that PWs 1 & 5, appellant’s husband who is also
the complainant, and her father-in-law, have both turned hostile.
However, the Sessions Judge brushed aside this factor based on
the rationale that these individuals were, ultimately, interested
in ensuring that the appellant was acquitted and hence resiled
from their earlier statements which had supported her guilt. The
trial Court opined that the prosecution version of events was,
by far, the more plausible and logically resulted in the demise of
the appellant’s daughter. [Para 12][373-H; 374-A-B]
2. Undoubtedly there is some murkiness surrounding the
exact circumstances in which the appellant and her daughter
consumed a poisonous substance, Odeuvanthlai. The appellant
has attributed her initial statement on 11.10.2012, when she had
regained consciousness in the hospital, to influencing from the
police who allegedly convinced her that they would apprehend
the individuals who had offered her daughter and her the tainted
honey, and also recover the jewelry that these unidentified
persons had stolen. However, she claimed that they asked her to
remain silent about these details and simply convey that the two
of them had consumed poisonous substance. This sequence of
events has been disbelieved by the Sessions Judge and the High
Court. Be that as it may, this necessarily has an impact on the
genuineness of the initial statement made by the appellant.
Combined with the subsequent hostile turns taken by some of
the vital witnesses in the trial, a seed of doubt is placed in terms
of the conviction of the appellant. [Paras 14 & 15][374-D-G]
3. Thus, the focus for this Court when ascertaining
reasonable doubt is not merely the possibility of doubt or of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
369
another version of events but rather a version that survives the
scrutiny of an honest and conscientious judicial mi

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