The division judge bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia of the apex court in the case of Rajaram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors held that the weight and utility of a dying declaration depend upon the surrounding circumstances and the credibility which the court attaches to it, having regard to the evidence led before it.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that a woman was brought to the hospital by her husband in a burnt condition. The dying declaration was recorded and after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the Appellants for offence under Sections 302, 307, 304B, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. the appellant and the other accused were convicted and sentenced. The High Court, by the impugned order, rejected their appeals. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC were affirmed.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that where a statement is made by a person as to the cause of her death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, that statement would be admissible. It was further submitted that hence, allegations made by the deceased against the accused, i.e., the appellant Rajaram, in her dying declaration would be inadmissible as they were not of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death. It was also submitted that the doctor was not present when the statement was made and the appellant was not named in the first dying declaration but was named in the second dying declaration.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has contended that the deceased in her first dying declaration actual perpetrators of the crime, which is those responsible for dousing the deceased with kerosene and setting her on fire, whereas Ex. P-26 contained details of the cruelty meted out to her since she had a disability and had a girl child. These and the people who treated her cruelly, taunted her, and demanded dowry were all named. They included the appellant and her husband. There was close proximity between the first and second statements. It was submitted that the absence of any endorsement by a doctor about the mental condition, or fitness to record the statement, or that it was recorded by a policeman cannot ipso facto result in its being ruled out.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that in numerous decisions and held that the weight and utility of a dying declaration depend upon the surrounding circumstances and the credibility that the court attaches to it, having regard to the evidence led before it. Therefore, whether it is essential to have medical certification before the statement is recorded, who records it, etc. are all fact-dependent, and no stereotypical approach can be adopted by courts. The hon’ble court also relied upon the judgments titled Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, and Jagbir Singh v State of NCT Delhi. The hon’ble court set aside the conviction and sentence hereby set aside.
CASE NAME- Rajaram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2311 OF 2022
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S). 6762 of 2022]
CORUM- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat Vs Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
DATE- 16.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :