Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

Bhagirath Vs. State of Rajasthan - (High Court of Rajasthan) (19 Jan 2017)

Person who records dying declaration must be satisfied that deceased was in fit state of mind

MANU/RH/0035/2017

Criminal

In present criminal appeal, Accused-Appellant, has challenged judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, by which accused appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 498A and 302 of Indian Penal code, 1860 (IPC). Trial Court considered the entire evidence relied upon dying declaration of the deceased, convicted accused Appellant. Issue for determination is whether dying declaration recorded by ASI, and Executive Magistrate, would be sufficient to record finding of conviction against the Appellant.

Discussion of evidence created serious doubt about fact of recording 'Parcha-Bayan' by ASI, upon which FIR was registered against Accused-Appellant. No satisfaction about fitness and state of mind was recorded by the Executive Magistrate before recording the dying declaration of deceased. All relatives including in-laws of deceased and maternal side, turned hostile and in both the dying declarations, no fitness certificate was obtained from doctors who were present in the hospital. Therefore, it was not safe to rely upon so-called two dying declarations so as to hold accused appellant guilty for alleged crime of murder.

Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, held that absence of certificate of doctor as to fitness of mind of declarant would not render dying declaration not acceptable. What is essentially required is that person who records it, must be satisfied that deceased was in fit state of mind. Certification by doctor is rule of caution. If the voluntary and truthful nature of declaration can be otherwise established, the same can be relied to record the dying declaration. The hyper technical view should not be therefore taken.

In facts of present case, neither Executive Magistrate, Rajgarh nor ASI, has recorded their own satisfaction while recording the statements/dying declaration of the deceased. Even doctor, who was present in Hospital, has not been asked to give fitness certificate declaring the injured to be in a position to give statement. Whole prosecution case which is solely based upon dying declaration is doubtful. Therefore, it is a fit case to reverse the finding of conviction arrived by trial Court so as to hold accused appellant guilty for the offence of murder. Furthermore, there is no corroborative evidence on record to effect that deceased, was subjected cruelty in connection demand of dowry. Thus, conviction recorded by trial court holding accused appellant guilty for offence under Section 498A of IPC, is not sustainable in law. Consequently, while extending benefit of doubt, instant criminal appeal filed by accused appellant, is allowed.

Relevant : Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0707/2002 : AIR 2002 SC 2973

Tags : CONVICTION   DYING DECLARATION   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved