Listen to this articleNaresh Kumar
v.
Kalawati and others
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2013
Decided on March 25, 2021
BENCH- Navin Sinha, Krishna Murari, JJ.
FACTS
The deceased had
suffered 95% burn injuries at home on 17.09.1991 at about 4:30 pm while
making tea. She was brought to Safdarjung
Hospital at 6:00 pm. She is said to have initially told the police at the
hospital that she had been set on fire by her husband. The deceased was examined by the said Dr.
Anant Sinha at about 6:00 pm and prepared her MLC(medico legal case). She is stated to have told him that she had
been set on fire by the wife of her husband’s elder brother while
making tea. The
MLC records her
as being fully conscious. It
is signed only
by the Doctor
who has not
been examined. The deceased
is then stated
to have made
a dying declaration before
police that she was set on fire by her sister-in-law by pouring kerosene oil
while she was making tea and that her husband had brought her to the hospital.
It bears her right toe impression
as her hands
were burnt. The
statement bears the signature of Dr. Anant Sinha. The MLC does
not bear any endorsement by the Doctor with regard to his presence during the
recording of the same and the fit state of mind by the deceased to make the
statement. The trial court and High
Court acquitted the respondents i.e. sister-in-law and husband and hence this
appeal from the victim’s family.
ISSUE
Whether the two courts
below i.e. High Court and trial court erred in acquitting the respondents?
HELD
The Supreme Court
dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment of the Courts below said that
the first statement of the deceased made to police is based on hearsay as
deposed by another witness that she was set on fire by her husband. Furthermore,
there is no reference to respondent, sister-in-law, in this statement and
neither has victim said anything about dowry demand. The Supreme Court
examining the next statement of the deceased, blaming her sister-in-law said
that the victim’s statement does not name her specifically. Furthermore, it is stated
that the dying declaration is not signed by anybody and the Doctor who recorded
the statement has not been examined, hence its cannot establish the correctness
of its contents. The next statement of
the deceased has been recorded by another police officer, blaming
respondent,sister-in-law, alone without any allegation against respondent,
husband, and on the contrary states that she was brought to the hospital by
respondent, husband, without disclosing any dowry demand. The Supreme Court
traversing through the facts said that doctor who recorded the dying
declaration does not state that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make
the statement.
Therefore, the Supreme
Court stating the law of dying declaration said that it is admissible in
evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and it alone can
also form the basis for conviction if it has been made voluntarily and inspires
confidence. If there are contradictions, variations, creating doubts about its
truthfulness, affecting its veracity and credibility or if the dying declaration
is suspect, or the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to
the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death,
the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused. Therefore, the Supreme Court without interfering
with the decision of Courts below dismissed the appeal.