Madras High Court

Srinivasakumar vs State By The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 18 July, 2019

Author:
A.D.Jagadish Chandira

Bench:
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 18.07.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

Crl.A.No.470 of 2010

Srinivasakumar Appellant
Vs
State by The Assistant Commissioner of Police (L&O)
All Women Police Station (Central),
Coimbatore. Respondent
Prayer:- This Criminal Appeal is filed, under
Section 374(2)
Cr.PC, against the

judgement of conviction and sentence, dated, 28.07.2010, made in SC.No.291

of 2006, by the District Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore.

For Appellant : M/s.V.Sairam
For Respondent : Mr.K.Prabakaran, APP

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed, against the judgement of conviction and

sentence, dated 28.07.2010, made in SC.No. 291 of 2006, by the Mahila

Court, Coimbatore, acquitting the Appellant/ accused for the offence under

Section 498A
of IPC and finding the Appellant/Accused guilty for the offence

under
Section 306
of IPC and convicting and sentencing the

Appellant/Accused for the offence under
Section 306
of IPC to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment.

2. The case of the Prosecution is that the marriage between the

appellant/accused and the deceased, Santha took place on 03.06.2001 at
http://www.judis.nic.in
Udayar Thimuana Hall, Paramakudi and that at the time of marriage, 40

sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles were given by the parents

of the deceased and that thereafter, when they were living at K.K.Pudur,

Coimbatore, the appellant/accused, suspecting fidelity of the deceased, had

questioned her as to whether she was having a boyfriend and abused her

with harsh words and thereby, committed cruelty on her. On 20.02.2006,

during night hours, the appellant/accused had abused the deceased in a

filthy language and saying her “to go to her parental home immediately or

else he will send her out from his house". On 21.02.2006 around 8.00 a.m.,

the appellant/accused had abused her, saying her to go and die, due to

which, the deceased committed suicide by self immolation by pouring

kerosene. Hence, the Appellant/Accused was charge sheeted for the

offences under
Sections 498A
and
of IPC.

3. The final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3,

Coimbatore in PRC No.13 of 2006. After furnishing copies under
Section 207

Cr.PC to the Appellant/Accused, since the case was exclusively triable by a

Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, who in turn, had made over the case to the

Mahila Court, Coimbatore for trial.

4. The Trial Court, after perusing the documents and hearing both sides, had

framed necessary charges against the appellant/accused for the offence

under
Sections 498A
and
of IPC. The accused had denied the charges

and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused,

on the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P1 to
http://www.judis.nic.in
P23 and M.Os.1 to 7 were marked.

5. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused

was questioned under
Section 313
Cr.PC as to the incriminating

circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the

accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has

been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 was

examined and Ex.D.1 was marked.

6. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and

also looking into the materials available on record, while acquitting the

Appellant/Accused for the offence under
Section 498A
of IPC, found the

accused/appellant guilty for the offence under
Section 306
of IPC and

convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five

years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months

Rigorous Imprisonment, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

7. This court heard the learned counsel on either side.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the Trial

Court, having acquitted the appellant/accused for the offence under
Section

498A
of IPC on the same set of facts and evidence, erred in convicting the

appellant/accused for the offence under
Section 306
of IPC. He would submit

that the Trial Court had failed to take into consideration that PW.1, father,

PW.2, mother and PW.3, brother of the victim/deceased have not supported

the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as hostile and that

Trial Court erred in believing Ex.P20, dying declaration, despite the fact that

the scribe of the complaint one Kaleeswari, the Sub Inspector of Police who
http://www.judis.nic.in
had recorded the statement of the deceased and one Doctor Sekar, who had

attested the same, have not been examined.

9. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused would further submit that the

other independent witness, PW.4, has also not supported the case of the

prosecution and that though Ex.P5, medical certificate was stated to have

been recorded in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate and though the duty

Doctor was stated to have attested in Ex.P.5, she has not certified that the

victim was physically and mentally fit at the time of giving the dying

declaration and that when no such certification has been made and the

doctor having not been examined, the Trial Court erred in placing reliance

on Ex.P5 to base conviction. He would further submit that even assuming

that the contents of the dying declaration are taken to be true, the

Prosecution did not make out a case for abetment of suicide and that before

invoking and raising presumption under
Section 113A
of the Evidence

Act,1872, the prerequisites must be established by the Prosecution

10.The learned counsel for the Appellant would further submit that admittedly,

there are two dying declarations in this case, viz. (1) the dying declaration

recorded by PW.13, Judicial Magistrate, which was marked as Ex.P10 and

(2) another dying declaration recorded by one Kaleeswari, Sub Inspector of

Police, which was marked as Ex.P20, which formed basis for registration of

the complaint and that the glaring contradiction and inconsistencies between

the contents of Ex.P10 and Ex.P20 belies the case of the Prosecution,

creating a doubt in the case of the Prosecution and that due to the

contradictions, recording of the dying declaration by PW.13, Judicial
http://www.judis.nic.in
Magistrate becomes suspicious and further, the said Kaleeswari, Sub

Inspector of Police, who was stated to have been recorded the subsequent

statement, has also not been examined and thereby creating a doubt in the

case of the Prosecution. He would further submit that one

Dr.Balasubramanian, who was examined on the side of the defence as

DW.1, who is the colleague of Dr.Sangeetha, had stated that the said

Dr.Sangeetha had signed Ex.P5, however, no seal has been affixed to

corroborate the same and that DW.1 had also stated that the counter

signature / initial found in the corrections made in the column, viz., ''whether

the patient was mentally fit to give such a statement?'' pertains to that of

Dr.Sangeetha, thereby creating a doubt with regard to the fitness of the

deceased at the time of recording of the dying declaration and that DW.1 had

further deposed that the victim was administered with pethidine and thereby

suggesting that the victim could not have been in a fit state to give such a

dying declaration.

11.The learned counsel for the Appellant/ accused would further submit that

though a presumption could be drawn under
Section 113A
of the Indian

Evidence Act, against that Appellant/Accused, the initial burden of proving

such an offence has been committed by the appellant/accused under
Section

498A
IPC is on the prosecution and only on such evidence, the Court may

presume that the Appellant/ accused had abetted and further, the

presumption under
Section 113A
of the Indian Evidence Act is not as strict as

mandated in
Section 113B
of the Indian Evidence Act. He would further

submit that on facts, the Prosecution has not discharged the initial burden
http://www.judis.nic.in
that the husband had instigated, abetted or intentionally aided so as to drive

the wife to commit suicide or that the acts of the appellant were of such a

decree which was likely to drive the wife to commit suicide.

12.The learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused would submit that conviction

for offence under
Section 306
of IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of

harassment without there being any positive action of instigation or

intentional aid proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of accused,

which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. He would rely on the

decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in 2019 SCC Online SC 44

(
Rajesh V. State of Haryana
) and (2019) 3 SCC 315 (
M.Arjunan Vs. State
),

in support of his contentions.

13.Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

though the parents of the deceased have not supported the case of the

prosecution and have turned hostile, Ex.P10, dying declaration given by the

deceased and recorded by PW.13, the Judicial Magistrate, in the presence of

the duty Doctor, who had certified with regard to the fitness, is clinching and

the Trial Court placing reliance on the dying declaration of the victim had

rightly convicted the Appellant/ accused. He would further submit that the

incident had occurred at 8.00 a.m., on 21.02.2006, and the dying declaration

was recorded at 9.50 a.m., on the same day within one hour and that the

victim had specifically stated that her husband suspected her fidelity and that

after consuming liquor, he used to beat her and that on the previous day, he

had consumed liquor and had beaten her and even in the morning, prior to

the occurrence the appellant/accused had created a problem with the
http://www.judis.nic.in
victim/deceased and thereby, she being fed up with her life had gone into the

bathroom and committed suicide by self immolating herself. He would further

submit that Ex.P5 is the Certificate of Fitness issued by Dr.Sangeetha,

certifying that the victim was conscious and was in a fit state of mind when

the dying declaration was recorded by PW.13, Judicial Magistrate.

Subsequently, a statement had been recorded by the Sub Inspector of

Police, Kaleeswari, in the presence of Dr.Sangeetha. Even eschewing all

other statements, Ex.P10, the dying declaration recorded by PW.13, Judicial

Magistrate, is clinching and there is no reason to disbelieve it. There is no

contradiction between the statements recorded from the deceased and there

is no reason or circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its

truthfulness. He would further submit that the Trial Court, raising

presumption against the appellant/accused under
Section 113A
of the

Evidence Act and accepting the dying declaration as the statement made

under
Section 32
of the Evidence Act, has rightly convicted the

appellant/accused and that though the parents of the deceased have turned

hostile before the Court, the Trial Court, placing reliance on the dying

declaration of the victim and other corroborative evidence through

independent witness, had rightly convicted the appellant/accused.

14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the statements

have been recorded during RDO Enquiry wherein the father, mother and

brother of the victim/deceased have stated in detail with regard to the

harassment, meted out to the victim deceased and that immediately after the

occurrence, a statement has been recorded by Kalaimani, the Sub Inspector
http://www.judis.nic.in
of Police in the presence of Dr.Sangeetha, who has certified about the

consciousness of the patient while the statement was recorded, wherein the

victim had vividly stated about the harassment inflicted on her by the

appellant/accused.

15.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused would

submit that the statements recorded, during the enquiry by the Revenue

Divisional Officer can only be construed as statements recorded during the

enquiry/investigation and that the close relatives have not supported the case

of the prosecution in the witness box during the trial and thereby the

statements made before the RDO cannot be taken into consideration and

they have to be brushed aside. He would further submit that the Trial Court

ought to have taken into consideration the attended circumstances in the

case and that the presumptions against the appellant/accused under
Section

113A
of the Evidence Act having not been proved, ought to have acquitted

the Appellant. He would also submit that as per the Accident Register,

Ex.P6, the deceased was stated to have sustained 100% burn injuries, which

were II to III degree burns and it would not have been possible to give a

dying declaration. Further, the conduct of the Appellant/Accused

immediately after the occurrence would infer that it was not the intention of

the appellant/accused to drive the victim to commit suicide and that it could

be inferred from the facts that immediately after the occurrence he had

attempted to save his wife, due to which he had sustained grievous injuries

and was admitted as an inpatient and the treatment taken by him in the

hospital has been spoken to by PW.15, Investigating Officer and these facts
http://www.judis.nic.in
improbabilise the theory of the appellant having abetted suicide. In support of

the above contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would

rely on the judgement reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 Ramesh Kumar V.

State of Chhattisgarh.

16.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions

put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire

evidence available on record and also perused the impugned judgement of

conviction.

17.The Trial Court, in and by the impugned judgement, while acquitting the

Appellant/Accused for the offence under
Section 498A
of IPC, had found the

Appellant/Accused guilty and sentenced him for the offence under
Section
of IPC, as stated above, holding that the Prosecution, by cogent

evidence, had proved that the Appellants/ accused had committed acts of

incitement to the commission of suicide by the deceased.

18.Now, the Points for consideration is as to whether the Trial Court is justified

in convicting Appellant/Accused for the offence under Section
Section 306
of

IPC despite the fact that the relatives of the victim/deceased turning hostile

and having not supported the case of the Prosecution and there being

multiple statements recorded from the deceased.

19.In this context, while analysing the entire evidence, PW.1, Nithyanandham, a

retired Government Servant, PW.2, Indirani and PW.3, Sivasankaran, PW.4,

Mayadevi, are respectively the father, mother and brother and a neighbour,

of the deceased and they have not supported the case of the Prosecution

and they have been treated as hostile.

http://www.judis.nic.in
20.PW.5, Gopinath is a witness to the preparation of the observation mahazar

and he had attested the observation mahazar. PW.6, Kanagaraj, is also a

witness to the observation mahazar and also to the recovery mahazar under

which MO.1, plastic bottle, MO.2, match stick, MO.3, piece of burn cloth,

MO.4, iron hook of the door, Mos.5 and 6, photographs, MO.7, negatives,

were seized. PW.7, Ravi, is the cousin of the deceased and he has also not

supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile.

PW.8, Ramamani, is the maternal grandfather of the victim/deceased and he

has also not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated

as hostile.

21.PW.9 , Dr.Sekar, is the Chief Medical Officer, K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore,

who had examined the victim/deceased and had spoken to about the

treatment given on 21.02.2006, at 8.55 a.m. to the victim/deceased, who

was admitted in the hospital for taking treatment for burn injuries. He had

deposed that the victim/ deceased had sustained severe burn injuries all

over the body and at that time Dr.Sangeetha, was on duty in the out patient

ward and that an intimation under Ex.P4 was given to the Judicial Magistrate

for recording the dying declaration of the victim/deceased and that based on

the intimation, the learned Magistrate had visited the hospital and had

recorded the dying declaration and that Dr.Sangeetha, Duty Doctor, had

certified with regard to the fitness of the victim/deceased and the portion of

the certificate of fitness was marked as Ex.P5 and that the victim/deceased

had been taking treatment till 04.03.2006 and that she had died on

04.03.2006 at 12.40 p.m and the medical documents related to the medical
http://www.judis.nic.in
history was marked as Ex.P6 and during cross examination, he had deposed

that there are corrections with regard to the date and time in respect of Ex.P6

(Accident Register).

22.PW.10, Dr.Kulandaivelu, who had conducted autopsy on the body of the

victim/deceased, had deposed that on 05.03.2006, on the request of the

District Revenue Officer sent through Woman Police Constable,

Jayalakshmi, he had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and he

had given an opinion that the victim/deceased died of "extensive burns and

its complications” and that viscera does not contain any poison and that the

post-mortem report was marked as Ex.P7 and the chemical analysis report

was marked as Ex.P8 and the finding of the doctor opinion was marked as

Ex.P9.

23.PW.11, Sathishkumar, photographer, had deposed that on instructions of the

Investigating Officer, he had visited the scene of occurrence and taken

photographs and the said photographs were marked as MO.5 series and

thereafter, he had taken photographs of the victim/deceased marked as

M.O.6 series; and the photo negatives were marked as M.O.7 series.

24.PW.12, Jayalakshmi, the Police constable had deposed that she had taken

the body of the deceased for post-mortem and after completing post-mortem,

she handed over the body of the deceased to the relatives of the

victim/deceased.

25.PW.13, P.Saravanan, is the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the dying

declaration and he had deposed that on 21.02.2006, while he was working

as Judicial Magistrate, he had received a requisition at 9.40 a.m. from
http://www.judis.nic.in
K.G.Hospital, Coimbatore and he had reached the hospital at 9.50 a.m and

recorded the statement of the deceased after he had obtained the certificate

with regard to the fitness of the victim/deceased from the Doctor and finding

that the victim was fit, he had enquired the Doctor with regard to her fitness

and informed her about him recording the dying declaration and after getting

acceptance from the Doctor, recorded dying declaration. He had further

deposed that the dying declaration from the deceased was recorded between

9.55 a.m. to 10.03 a.m., and after recording the dying declaration he had

read about what he had recorded from the deceased and after getting her

assertion as to the correctness of the statement recorded and having found

that there were severe injuries in her hand, had obtained the impression of

her left big toe in the statement. He had further deposed that he had obtained

statement from Dr.Sangeetha with regard to her fitness from the beginning of

recording statement till the end and that thereafter, he had sent the dying

declaration report to the Court concerned, which was marked as Ex.P10.

26.PW.14, Ramadoss, Revenue Divisional Officer had deposed that on

04.03.2006, while he was on duty, he had received FIR in Cr.No.28 of 2006

and that since the death of the victim/deceased had happened within 7 years

of marriage, he had conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the

Hospital and examined the parents of the victim/deceased and independent

witnesses and recorded their statements. He had further deposed that the

statements recorded from the father, mother and brother of the

victim/deceased were marked as Exs.P11, 12 and 13 respectively and the

statement of the Doctor was marked as Ex.P14 and the statement recorded
http://www.judis.nic.in
from the independent witnesses have been marked as Exs.P15, 16 and 17

respectively and that thereafter, he had sent the inquest report marked as

Ex.P18 and thereafter, he had sent a request to the Hospital for conducting

post-mortem and he had opined that there was no demand of dowry.

However, he had stated that he had opined that since the appellant/accused

had suspected fidelity and abused her in a filthy language, she had

committed suicide. The final opinion was marked as Ex.P19. In his cross

examination, he had stated that the victim had sustained burn injuries

throughout her body and thereby, he was unable to note the identification

marks and that there are burn injuries in both hands and throughout the legs

and further deposed that the panchayatdars were examined and they have

informed that they did not know the reason for the victim/deceased

committing suicide.

27.PW.15, Vijayalakshmi, the Sub Inspector of Police, had deposed that on

21.2.006 at 11.00 p.m., she had registered the case for offences under

Sections 498A
and
of IPC based on the statement of the victim/

deceased recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kaleeswari, which was

marked as Ex.P20 and registered the case in Cr.No.28 of 2006, for the

offence under
Sections 498A
and
of IPC and prepared the printed First

Information Report, which was marked as Ex.P21 and thereafter, she had

sent Exs.P20 and 21 to the Court and had taken up the case for investigation

and that thereafter, she had gone to the hospital and recorded the

statements from the father, mother and brother of the victim/deceased. On

22.02.2006, she had gone to the place of occurrence and prepared the
http://www.judis.nic.in
observation mahazar under Ex.P3 and rough sketch under Ex.P22 in the

presence of witnesses, PW.5, Gopinath and PW.6, Kanagaraj and that she

had called the photographer, PW.11 and he had taken photographs at the

scene of occurrence and that P.W.15, Investigating Officer recovered MOs.1

to 4 in the presence of witnesses viz., the Pepsi Plastic bottle with kerosene,

match box, a piece of burned cloth with kerosene, hook iron latch of the

bathroom and thereafter, she had recorded the statements of the witnesses

and that on 25.02.2006, at 4.00 p.m., she arrested the appellant/accused at

K.G.Hospital and sent him to judicial remand on 04.03.2006 at 15.00 hours

and thereafter, on coming to know about death of the victim/deceased, she

altered the case in Cr.No.28 of 2006 to for the offences under
Sections 498A

and
of IPC. She had further deposed that the alteration report was sent

to the Revenue Divisional Officer and since the victim/deceased had died

within 7 years of marriage, she had referred the case for RDO Enquiry and

that PW.1 had informed her that after the marriage his daughter was living

happily for ten days and thereafter, her son in law had suspected her fidelity

and had caused cruelty on her and that on examination of the relatives of the

victim/deceased, they have informed him that the appellant/accused used to

harass her and committed cruelty on her suspecting her fidelity and that his

daughter had informed him that the appellant/accused was committing

cruelty on her and that the mother of the victim/deceased had informed about

the appellant/accused abusing her with filthy language on 20.02.2006 in the

night hours and abused her under the influence of liquor and once again, on

the next day he had abused her and had further deposed that after the victim
http://www.judis.nic.in
had self immolated herself and the appellant/accused had taken her to the

hospital. During her cross examination, the Investigating Officer had

deposed that she has not examined Kaleeswari-Sub Inspector of Police, who

had recorded the statements from the victim/deceased under Ex.P20 and

she had not conducted any investigation with regard to her admission in the

hospital. She had admitted to have made corrections in Ex.P21 with regard

to the time and that she has not explained with regard to the delay in Ex.P21.

She had further stated in cross examination that , she had obtained

statement on the next day morning however, she had not taken any

certificate with regard to the fitness and she had admitted that she was not

aware of the alleged impressions of the left big toe taken in Exs.P10 to

Ex.P20.

28.PW.16, Kumarasamy, is the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he had

deposed that the case was registered and initially investigated by

Vijayalakshmi, the Sub Inspector of Police, PW.15 and thereafter since, the

victim/deceased had succumbed to the injuries on 04.03.2006, the case was

altered to 498A and 306 of
IPC
and after receiving the Special Report, he

had gone to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the

relatives of the victim/deceased and other independent witness and

thereafter, a request was made to Revenue Divisional Officer to send the

body for post-mortem and after completing post-mortem, handed over the

body to the relatives. He had further deposed that he had recorded the

statements of PW.9, Sekar and PW.12, Jayalakshmi and on 30.03.2006, he

had received the inquest report from the Revenue Divisional Officer and
http://www.judis.nic.in
thereafter, he had examined the Revenue Divisional Officer and the

photographer and on 19.05.2006, he had filed the Final Report against the

appellant/accused for offences under
Section 498A
and
of IPC. He had

further deposed that PW.1, during his investigation had told him that his son

in law had harassed and committed cruelty on his daughter suspecting her

fidelity and that on 20.01.2006, he had received a phone call from his wife

stating that her daughter immolated herself and thereafter, he had come to

the hospital and seen her with burn injuries.

29.On the side of the defence, one Dr.B.Balasubramaniam was examined as

DW.1 and the case sheet was marked as Ex.D1. He had deposed that as per

Ex.D1, the victim/deceased had been administered with pain killers namely

pethidine, at 10.30 a.m. and it had been noted in the case sheet.

30.An overall scrutiny of the evidence on record and the judgement of the Trial

Court shows that the Trial Court had convicted the Appellant/Accused,

relying on the statement of PW.9, Dr.Sekar, and placing reliance on Ex.P10,

dying declaration recorded by PW.13, Judicial Magistrate. The learned

counsel for the Appellant/Accused has raised a point, stating that the dying

declaration recorded by PW.13, Judicial Magistrate is doubtful and that the

victim, who had suffered 100% burn injuries, which was in the nature of II and

III Degree burns, could not have given a dying declaration. Further, as per

the evidence of DW.1 and Ex.D1, the deceased had been administered with

pethidine and thereby she could not have given the dying declaration and

thereby, the Trial Court erred in convicting the Appellant/ accused, based on

Ex.P10 dying declaration and the evidence of PW.13, Judicial Magistrate.
http://www.judis.nic.in
He has further argued that another statement was recorded by one

Kaleeswari, Sub Inspector of Police (who was not examined) and there are

inconsistencies in the statement recorded in the presence of Judicial

Magistrate in Ex.P10 and the statement recorded by Kaleeswari, based on

which the First Information Report was registered. He has further argued that

even taking into consideration the contents of the dying declaration, the

ingredients of the offence under
Section 306
of IPC are not made out since

there was no positive action of instigation or intentional aid proximate to the

time of occurrence on the part of the Appellants/ accused. On this aspect, it

is apposite to refer to the conditions precedent for convicting an accused

based on dying declaration, laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in

its decision reported in 2010 8 SCC 514 (
Lakhan Vs. State of MP
), wherein

in paragraph 9 to 21, it was held as under:-

“9. The doctrine of dying declaration is enshrined in the legal
maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire, which means “a man will
not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth”. The doctrine of dying
declaration is enshrined in
Section 32
of the Evidence Act, 1872
(hereinafter called as “the
Evidence Act
”) as an exception to the
general rule contained in
Section 60
of the Evidence Act, which
provides that oral evidence in all cases must be direct i.e. it must be
the evidence of a witness, who says he saw it. The dying declaration
is, in fact, the statement of a person, who cannot be called as witness
and, therefore, cannot be cross-examined. Such statements
themselves are relevant facts in certain cases.

10. This Court has considered time and again the relevance/probative
value of dying declarations recorded under different situations and
also in cases where more than one dying declaration has been
recorded. The law is that if the court is satisfied that the dying
declaration is true and made voluntarily by the deceased, conviction
can be based solely on it, without any further corroboration. It is
neither a rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot
be relied upon without corroboration. When a dying declaration is
suspicious, it should not be relied upon without having corroborative
http://www.judis.nic.in
evidence. The court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully
and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring,
prompting or imagination. The deceased must be in a fit state of mind
to make the declaration and must identify the assailants.
Merely
because a dying declaration does not contain the details of the
occurrence, it cannot be rejected and in case there is merely a brief
statement, it is more reliable for the reason that the shortness of the
statement is itself a guarantee of its veracity. If the dying declaration
suffers from some infirmity, it cannot alone form the basis of
conviction. Where the prosecution version differs from the version
given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted
upon. (
Vide Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay
[AIR 1958 SC 22 : 1958
Cri LJ 106] , Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 264 : 1974
SCC (Cri) 426 :
AIR 1974 SC 332] , K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public
Prosecutor
[(1976) 3 SCC 618 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 473 :
AIR 1976 SC
1994] , State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu
[1980
Supp SCC 455 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 364] , Uka Ram v. State of
Rajasthan [(2001) 5 SCC 254 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 847] , Babulal v. State
of M.P. [(2003) 12 SCC 490 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 620] , Muthu
Kutty v. State [(2005) 9 SCC 113 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 1202] , State of
Rajasthan v. Wakteng
[(2007) 14 SCC 550 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 217]
and Sharda v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 2 SCC 85 : (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 980] .)

11.
In
Munnawar v. State of U.P.
[(2010) 5 SCC 451 : (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 1285] this Court held that a dying declaration can be relied upon
if the deceased remained alive for a long period of time after the
incident and died after recording of the dying declaration. That may be
evidence to show that his condition was not overtly critical or
precarious when the dying declaration was recorded.

12. A dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate would
stand on a much higher footing than the declaration recorded by
officer of lower rank, for the reason that the competent Magistrate has
no axe to grind against the person named in the dying declaration of
the victim, however, circumstances showing anything to the contrary
should not be there in the facts of the case. (Vide Ravi
Chander v. State of Punjab [(1998) 9 SCC 303 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1004]
, Harjit Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1999) 6 SCC 545 : 1999 SCC (Cri)
1130] , Koli Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat [(1999) 9 SCC 562 :

2000 SCC (Cri) 432] and Vikas v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 2 SCC
516 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 486] .)

13.
In
Balak Ram v. State of U.P.
[(1975) 3 SCC 219 : 1974 SCC (Cri)
837 : AIR 1974 SC 2165] the question arose as to whether a dying
declaration recorded by a higher officer can be discarded in case of
multiple dying declarations. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 235,
http://www.judis.nic.in
para 54)

“54. … The circumstances surrounding the dying declaration, though
uninspiring, are not strong enough to justify the view that officers as
high in the hierarchy as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Civil
Surgeon and the District Magistrate hatched a conspiracy to bring a
false document into existence. The civil services (sic servants) have
no platform to controvert allegations, howsoever grave and
unfounded. It is, therefore, necessary that charges calculated to
impair their career and character ought not to be accepted except on
the clearest proof. We are not prepared to hold that the dying
declaration is a fabrication.”

14.
In
Sayarabano v. State of Maharashtra
[(2007) 12 SCC 562 :

(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 303] , two dying declarations had been recorded.

As per the first declaration, the deceased had met with an accident.
She was hit by the kerosene lamp which fell on her body and caught
fire. While recording the second declaration, the Judicial Magistrate
asked her why she was changing her statement. The deceased
replied that her mother-in-law had told her not to give any statement
against the family members of her in-laws and that was the reason,
why she had not involved any person in the earlier statement. But, in
fact, it was her mother-in-law who threw the kerosene lamp on her
and thus, she was burnt. She also stated that her mother-in-law was
harassing her. In such a situation, this Court held that the second
dying declaration was true and inspired confidence. Ill treatment of the
deceased was clearly established and completely proved on the basis
of the evidence of other witnesses.

15. In case, there are inconsistent dying declarations, the Court must
rely upon any other evidence, if available, as it is not safe to act only
on inconsistent dying declarations and convict the accused.
(
Vide Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P.
[(2004) 9 SCC 713 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1479] )

16.
In
Sher Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2008) 4 SCC 265 : (2008) 2
SCC (Cri) 783 : AIR 2008 SC 1426] , a case of bride burning, three
dying declarations had been recorded. In the first dying declaration,
the deceased had denied the role of the accused persons. In the
second dying declaration the deceased attributed a role to the
accused but the said declaration did not contain the certificate of the
doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a
declaration, however, the Magistrate, who recorded the declaration,
certified that the deceased was in a conscious state of mind and was
in a position to make the statement to him. The third dying declaration
was recorded by a police officer after the doctor certified that she was
in a fit state of mind to give the statement. This Court held that the
http://www.judis.nic.in
conviction could be based on the third dying declaration as it was
consistent with the second dying declaration and the oral dying
declaration made to her uncle, though with some inconsistencies.
First declaration was made immediately after she was admitted in the
hospital and was under threat and duress by her mother-in-law that
she would be admitted in hospital only if she would give a statement
in favour of the accused persons.

17.
In
Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar
[(1999) 2 SCC 126 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 104] this Court held that a statement of the deceased recorded
by a police officer in a routine manner as a complaint and not as a
dying declaration can also be treated as dying declaration after the
death of the injured and relied upon if the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses clearly establishes that the deceased was conscious and
was in a fit state of health to make the statement.

18.
In
Amol Singh v. State of M.P.
[(2008) 5 SCC 468 : (2008) 2 SCC
(Cri) 637] this Court, placing reliance upon the earlier judgment
in
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P.
[(1993) 2 SCC 684 :

1993 SCC (Cri) 655] , held that it is not the plurality of dying
declarations but the reality thereto that adds weight to the prosecution
case. If a dying declaration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made
in a fit mental condition, it can be relied upon without any
corroboration. If there is more than one dying declaration, they should
be consistent. In case of inconsistencies between two or more dying
declarations made by the deceased, the Court has to examine the
nature of inconsistencies, namely, whether they are material or not
and in such a situation, the Court has to examine the multiple dying
declarations in the light of the various surrounding facts and
circumstances.

19.
In
Heeralal v. State of M.P.
[(2009) 12 SCC 671 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri) 686] this Court considered the case having two dying
declarations, the first recorded by a Magistrate, wherein it was clearly
stated that the deceased had tried to set herself ablaze by pouring
kerosene on herself. However, the subsequent declaration was
recorded by another Magistrate and a contrary statement was made.
This Court set aside the conviction after appreciating the evidence
and reaching the conclusion that the courts below came to abrupt
conclusions on the purported possibility that the relatives of the
accused might have compelled the deceased to give a false dying
declaration. No material had been brought on record to justify such a
conclusion.

20.
In
State of A.P. v. P. Khaja Hussain
[(2009) 15 SCC 120 : (2010) 2
SCC (Cri) 380] this Court set aside the conviction as there was a
variation between the two dying declarations about the manner in
http://www.judis.nic.in
which the deceased was set on fire and for the reason that there was
no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

21. In view of the above, the law on the issue of dying declaration can
be summarised to the effect that in case the court comes to the
conclusion that the dying declaration is true and reliable, has been
recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically
and mentally to make the declaration and it has not been made under
any tutoring/duress/prompting; it can be the sole basis for recording
conviction. In such an eventuality no corroboration is required. In case
there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies
between them, generally, the dying declaration recorded by the higher
officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is no
circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness. In
case there are circumstances wherein the declaration had been
made, not voluntarily and even otherwise, it is not supported by the
other evidence, the court has to scrutinise the facts of an individual
case very carefully and take a decision as to which of the declarations
is worth reliance.”

31.While analysing the case on hand in the light of the aforesaid settled legal

preposition, in this case, as per the evidence of PW.9, Dr.Sekar, he had

deposed about the admission of the victim/ deceased in the Hosptal on

21.2.2006 at 8.55 a.m. and that the intimation under Ex.P4 had been sent to

the Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration from the

victim/ deceased between 9.55 a.m. and 10.03 a.m. and that the Duty Doctor

Sangeetha had certified to the fitness of the victim/ deceased in giving the

statement and that after recording of dying declaration, the victim/ deceased

had died on 4.3.2006 at 12.40 p.m. The case history was marked as Ex.P6

and he had deposed that the reason for not examining Dr.S.Sangeetha was

that she was not presently working in the Hospital and that he had identified

the signatures of Dr.S.Sangeetha. Admittedly, on admission of the victim, the

intimation was sent to the Judicial Magistrate, PW.13, who had recorded the

statement. Yet another ground raised by the learned counsel for the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Appellant was that the victim/ deceased was administered with pethidine and

she could not have given the dying declaration and he had relied on Ex.D1,

the case sheet. A perusal of the records shows that pethidine had been

administered to the victim/ deceased at 10.30 a.m., whereas the dying

declaration had been recorded much prior to it at 10.03 a.m. itself. There is

no reason to doubt about the recording of the dying declaration, Ex.P10.

32.Another point raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant/ accused is

that yet another statement was recorded by one Kaleeswari, which had been

marked as Ex.P20, based on which the First Information Report was

registered. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused has argued that

there were inconsistencies in the dying declaration. As stated above, when

there are more than one dying declaration, the Law is that if the dying

declaration is true and made voluntarily by the deceased, conviction can be

based solely on it without any further corroboration and it is neither a rule of

law nor or prudence that a dying declaration cannot be relied upon without

corroboration.

33.The Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure

that the dying declaration is not result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.

This Court has carefully gone through the dying declarations. The dying

declaration under Ex.P10 has been recorded by a Judicial Magistrate, which

would stand on much higher footing than the dying declaration recorded by

an officer of lower rank. Subsequently, a statement had been recorded by the

Sub Inspector of Police, Kaleeswari, which had been marked as Ex.P20.

Even eschewing Ex.P20, the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial
http://www.judis.nic.in
Magistrate, inspires confidence

34.However, strangely, in this case, all the relatives of the victim/deceased,

PW.1 to PW.3, father, mother and brother of the deceased, respectively and

PW.7 and PW.8, cousin and maternal grand father of the deceased, have

not supported the case of the prosecution and they have been treated as

hostile by the prosecution.

35.In this case, there are two dying declarations, viz. Ex.P20 recorded by one

S.Kalaimani, Sub Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station in the presence of

Dr.S.Sangeetha and Ex.P10 was recorded by PW.13, Judicial Magistrate. In

Ex.P5, Dr. Sangeetha had certified with regard to the fitness of the victim at

time of recording dying declaration. It was contended by the counsel for the

appellant that reliance cannot be placed on the statement recorded by

Kalaimani, sub Inspector of Police without the said Kalaimani being

examined.

36.The fact remains that Ex.P10 was recorded by P.W.13, Judicial Magistrate in

the presence of Dr.Sangeetha, who had certified in Ex.P5 as under:-

@vd; fzth; vd; kPJ re;njfg;gl;L mof;fo vd;id
jpl;Lthh;/ mjdhy; vdf;Fk; vd; fztUf;Fk; mof;fo
gpur;rpid Vw;gLk; vd; fzth; kJ mUe;jptpl;L ve;J

vd;id mog;ghh;/ new;W (20/02/2006) ,ut[ vd; fzth; jz;zp
moj;J tpl;L te;J vd;id moj;jhh;/ mJ gw;wp vd;

fzthpd; mz;zdplk; brhd;ndd;/ ,d;W fhiy kPz;Lk; vd;

fzth; vd;dplk; gpur;rpid bra;jhh;/ mjdhy; ehd; kpft[k;

btWj;J ngha; vd;tPl;L ghj;Uk : f
; ;Fs; brd;W ehnd vd;kPJ
kz;bzz;bza; Cw;wp jP itj;Jf; bfhz;nld;/ FLk;g

gpur;rpiz kw;Wk; vd; fzth; vd; kPJ re;njfg;gl;ljhYk;
ehd; ,g;go bra;J bfhz;nld;/@

37.In Ex.P10, it was recorded to the effect that the deceased was in a fit state of

mind at the time recording dying declaration and that after understanding the
http://www.judis.nic.in
contents of the same, she affixed her left big toe impression on the same and

that duty Doctor was also there at that time. Even in Ex.P20, the deceased

had stated that the Appellant, suspecting her fidelity, was abusing her in a

filthy language frequently and that he shouted against the deceased, saying

that she should go to her parents house and had beaten her.

38.In Ex.P18, RDO Report, though it has been stated that the death of the

deceased was not due to dowry harassment, however, it was opined that the

Appellant/ accused suspecting her fidelity, had abused her in a filthy

language and harassed her and hence, unable to bear with such

harassment, the deceased committed suicide.

39.As regards the dying declaration, the Honourable Supreme Court, in 2017

[1] SCC 529 [Ramesh and Others V. State of Haryana], has held in

paragraph No.31 thus:-

''31.Law on the admissibility of the dying declarations is well settled.

In
Jai Karan v. State of N.C.T., Delhi MANU/SC/0613/1999
: (1999) 8
SCC 161, this Court explained that a dying declaration is admissible
in evidence on the principle of necessity and can form the basis of
conviction if it is found to be reliable. In order that a dying declaration
may form the sole basis for conviction without the need for
independent corroboration it must be shown that the person making it
had the opportunity of identifying the person implicated and is
thoroughly reliable and free from blemish. If, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is found that the maker of the statement
was in a fit state of mind and had voluntarily made the statement on
the basis of personal knowledge without being influenced by others
and the court on strict scrutiny finds it to be reliable, there is no Rule
of law or even of prudence that such a reliable piece of evidence
http://www.judis.nic.in
cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. A dying declaration is
an independent piece of evidence like any other piece of evidence,
neither extra strong or weak, and can be acted upon without
corroboration if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable. There is
no hard and fast Rule of universal application as to whether
percentage of burns suffered is determinative factor to affect
credibility of dying declaration and improbability of its recording. Much
depends upon the nature of the burn, part of the body affected by the
burn, impact of the burn on the faculties to think and convey the idea
or facts coming to mind and other relevant factors. Percentage of
burns alone would not determine the probability or otherwise of
making dying declaration.

Physical state or injuries on the declarant
do not by themselves become determinative of mental fitness of the
declarant to make the statement (See
Rambai v. State of
Chhatisgarh MANU/SC/0856/2002
: (2002) 8 SCC 83).”

40.In 2019 SCC Online SC 44 (
Rajesh V. State of Haryana
) and (2019) 3

SCC 315 (
M.Arjunan Vs. State
), the Honourable Supreme Court has held

that the essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306
of IPC are (i)

the abetment and (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet

the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused however insulting

the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the

abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that

the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit

suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are

satisfied, an accused cannot be convicted under
Section 306
of IPC.

41.In 2018 9 SCC 621 (
Siddaling Vs. State
through Kalagi Police Station), the

Honourable Supreme Court has held that abetment involves a mental

http://www.judis.nic.in process of instigating a person in any manner aiding that person in doing of a
thing and that Courts should carefully assess the facts of each case before

deciding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had induced her to

commit suicide.

42.In this case, on a close reading of the dying declarations and other evidence

on record, it is seen that the victim had been continuously subjected to

harassment by the appellant/accused, suspecting her fidelity. There had

been a continuous mental process whereby the victim/ deceased had been

instigated to commit suicide. Even just prior to the occurrence, the

appellant/accused had subjected her to cruelty and thereby in the opinion of

this Court, the Prosecution has proved the ingredients of
Section 306
of IPC.

Though the close relatives, viz., father, mother and brother of the

victim/deceased have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the

prosecution, the Prosecution had proved its case through the dying

declaration,Ex.P.10, recorded by P.W.13-Judicial Magistrate and that the

deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of recording dying declaration.

This Court finds no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration, Ex.P10.

43.Keeping in mind the above ratio
laid down by
the Honourable Supreme

Court, this Court is of the considered view that the dying declaration as well

as the statements given by the victim/deceased to the learned Magistrate as

well as to the Doctors do not suffer any infirmity. Further, while analysing the

contents of the dying declaration, this Court is of the opinion that it was the

appellant/accused who, by his acts, abetted and had driven the victim to take

an extreme step of putting an end to her life, by committing suicide and that

the Trial Court, had rightly convicted him for the offence under Section 306 of
http://www.judis.nic.in
IPC
.

44.Now coming to the question of sentence, it is the contention of the learned

counsel for the Appellant/Accused that admittedly, immediately after the

occurrence, the appellant/accused had made an attempt to save his

wife/victim and admitted her in the hospital and thereby, he had also

sustained injuries and he was also hospitalised, thereby, suggesting that the

intention of the appellant/accused was not to abet the victim to commit

suicide. Further, the parents and the brother of the victim have also not

supported the case of the prosecution and presently his child is with him and

he is taking case of his child and the above mitigating circumstances may be

taken into consideration for reduction of sentence.

45.The evidence of PW.7, Dr.Sekar and perusal of the Accident Register,

Ex.P.6 discloses that the victim was brought to the hospital with burn injuries

by her husband, the appellant/accused herein. The Appellant had sustained

severe injuries while attempting to save the deceased. Considering the

attended and mitigating circumstances that immediately after the occurrence,

the appellant/accused had attempted to save the life of his wife and that he

had also sustained burn injuries and further that the appellant/accused has

got a child to take care of and that he has not committed any further criminal

acts pursuant to his release on bail, this Court is of the considered view that

reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him to a period of one

year rigorous imprisonment, would meet the ends of justice.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

Srcm
http://www.judis.nic.in
46.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgement

of conviction and sentence for the offence under
Section 306
of IPC is

confirmed. However, considering the above said mitigating circumstances,

while confirming the imposition of fine amount, with default sentence, the

sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment is modified to the period of one year

Rigorous Imprisonment. Since it is reported that the appellant/accused is on

bail, the Respondent Police police is directed to secure the presence of the

appellant/accused to undergo the period of sentence now imposed.

18.07.2019
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking Order /Non Speaking Order
ssi/Srcm

To:

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Law and Order, All Women Police
Station, (Central),Coimbatore.

2.The District Judge (Mahila Court), Coimbatore.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.A.No.470 of 2010

http://www.judis.nic.in