Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi vs.Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Criminal Appeal No. 248
of 2007, Decided on May 29, 2013
In this case there were three
dying declarations
(i) Recorded by the head
constable wherein she had stated that a stove full of kerosene oil fell upon
her and thus, she suffered burn injuries.
(ii) Recorded by the Executive
Magistrate after getting certificate of fitness from the Doctor, wherein a
similar statement had been recorded.
(iii) Recorded by the Executive
Magistrate wherein she alleged that while the deceased was cooking food, the
appellant poured kerosene on her body and threw the burning stove on her, due
to which she received severe burn injuries.
Trial Court acquitted the accused
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal convicted the appellant under Section
302 IPC.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“It is a
settled legal proposition that in case there are apparent discrepancies in two
dying declarations, it would be unsafe to convict the accused. In such a
fact-situation, the accused gets the benefit of doubt”. [Para 15]
“In case of
plural/multiple dying declarations, the court has to scrutinise the evidence
cautiously and must find out whether there is consistency particularly in
material particulars therein. In case there are inter-se discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses given in support of
one of the dying declarations, it would not be safe to rely upon the same. In
fact it is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability
thereof that adds weigh to the prosecution case. If the dying declaration is
found to be voluntary, reliable and made in a fit mental condition, it can be
relied upon without any corroboration. But the statements should be consistent
throughout.” [Para 16]
“In case of
inconsistencies, the court has to examine the nature of the same, i.e. whether
they are material or not and while scrutinising the contents of various dying
declarations, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various
surrounding facts and circumstances. In case of dying declaration, as the
accused does not have right to cross-examine the maker and not able to elicit
the truth as happens in the case of other witnesses, it would not be safe to
rely if the dying declaration does not inspire full confidence of the court
about its correctness, as it may be result of tutoring, prompting or product of
imagination. The court has to be satisfied that the maker was in a fit state of
mind and had a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant (s)”.
[Para 17]
The Court referred following case
laws:
Smt. Kamla v. State of
Punjab, AIR 1993
SC 374
Kishan Lal v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1999 SC
3062
Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State
of A.P., AIR 2004
SC 1720
Amol Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC
468
State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.
Khaja Hussain, (2009) 15
SCC 120
Sharda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 408
Sharda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 408
Sanjay v. State of
Maharashtra, (2007) 9
SCC 148;
Heeralal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2009) 12
SCC 671
To see full text follow the link: