Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under section 304 Part II IPC and five-year rigorous imprisonment. The victim’s statement recorded by the investigating officer was admissible as a dying declaration because it concerned the injuries and transaction causing his subsequent death. Survival for more than three months did not disqualify it. The statement was corroborated by the injuries and other evidence, and the cited medical-certification precedent did not support exclusion. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the victim’s police statement could be used as a dying declaration after his later death.
- Whether the delay before death or circumstances of recording undermined its admissibility or reliability.
Provisions considered
- Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872A statement concerning the cause or circumstances of the maker’s death was relevant without requiring expectation of immediate death. Subsequent survival did not by itself destroy its value. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18)
- Section 162(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The statutory exception preserved use of a section 161 statement that fell within section 32(1) of the Evidence Act; ordinary restrictions on police statements did not exclude it. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 16)
Held
- A police-recorded statement qualifying under section 32(1) could acquire the character of a dying declaration after the maker’s death. The nature and content of the statement, not its original section 161 label, controlled its admissibility. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 16)
- Death need not follow immediately and the maker need not expect death when speaking. Reliability still required careful examination on the evidence of the individual case. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Laxman concerned the nature of medical certification of fitness and did not establish the exclusion urged here. The investigating officer’s explanation that the victim was too serious to examine earlier did not make the later recording suspicious. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The account identified the assailant and described the injuries leading to death. Medical findings and the informant’s evidence corroborated it, supporting the concurrent findings. The Court upheld the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under section 304 Part II IPC and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment upheld.