STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. DAL SINGH
LAWS(SC)-2013-5-58
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on May 21,2013

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
DAL SINGH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
SULAKHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-915] [REFERRED TO]
ANUJ KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2024-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH KUNDU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-94] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN MAHANTA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-70] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI ALIAS CHHOTELAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-344] [REFERRED TO]
OMKAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
MONU SHARMA VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH THAKUR VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-183] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2024-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
KALIYA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN VS. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-529] [REFERRED TO]
G. K. ARORA VS. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2024-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
K.M. PRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2016-12-51] [REFERRED TO]
MANJULA DEVI, WIFE OF SHYAM JHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-134] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MUKESH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-530] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) VS. FIROZ KHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-221] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. ARSHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-238] [REFERRED TO]
PARVATIBAI SAMBHAJI AAMRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MAHENDER [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-149] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) VS. RAJESH @ GAPPU [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI VS. RAM LAKHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-205] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-9-221] [REFERRED TO]
SWARNA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE (GNCTD) & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-12-323] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. B.RAJ SHARMA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
GUNTHI SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-394] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NATH YADAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NATH YADAVA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-90] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-115] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. KANTI BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2015-1-156] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-10-665] [REFERRED]
PRAMOD CHAUHAN VS. ABHILASH GARG [LAWS(MPH)-2023-7-132] [REFERRED TO]
BABU SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-376] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. SUNIL [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
SAHEBGONDA LAXMAN BIRAJDAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-254] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSHRIBEN @ KALI D/O SHAMJIYOMAL SUNJANI (SINDHI) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH RAJAN NAYAR VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-1-67] [REFERRED TO]
DHAVALKUMAR ARUN DOMBE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
ICICI BANK LTD VS. CHOUDHARY RAJNI & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-816] [REFERRED]
RUKSANA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
VEERESH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-7-159] [REFERRED TO]
RUPA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-3-200] [REFERRED TO]
SANGANAGOUDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-1548] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PRADEEP AMARSINH @ AMUBHAI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2017-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALA BAI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(CHH)-2013-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
M.H.FAISAL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
SARAFAT AHMED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-9-84] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-7-232] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMRAO MAROTRAO KHAWALE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) VS. VIPIN ALIAS LALLA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-234] [REFERRED TO]
MOITHE SEETHARAM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2016-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
D GATTAIAH SATISH VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAMROOP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-122] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U. P. VS. SAHAB SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-176] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA & ANR VS. STATE & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-176] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SAHARE AGED 27 YEARS S/O LATE SHRI HARIDAS SAHARE VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION KAMLA NAGAR BHOPAL (M.P) [LAWS(MPH)-2015-11-132] [REFERRED TO]
CHAVIRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGGO BAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. NILESHKUMAR NANALAL [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-203] [REFERRED TO]
HITESHKUMAR ISHWARBHAI LEUVA (VANKAR) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-190] [REFERRED TO]
ASGAR MIAN @ ASGAR ALI, SON OF LATE ISH MOHAMMAD MIAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LADHI BAZAR, P.S. GOREAKOTHI, DISTRICT SIWAN VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY PAL VS. STATE (GNCT) OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2015-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
MRITUNJOY BISWAS VS. PRANAB [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-77] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS. AJAY KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2020-1-311] [REFERRED TO]
FAZLUL HAQUE ALIAS LALU SK. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-54] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U.P. VS. JUGNU TIWARI [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-239] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) VS. PRADEEP @ SONU & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-4-214] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. RAMESH [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-150] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. LAL BABU MAHTO [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-186] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIK ABDUL AZEEM VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2019-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN MITTAL & ANR. VS. STATE & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-592] [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA [LAWS(SC)-2013-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. SADEEQ VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2017-7-24] [REFERRED TO]
FAYAZ AHAMMAD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-2-96] [REFERRED TO]
ABILASH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-186] [REFERRED TO]
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) VS. FIROZ KHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-316] [REFERRED TO]
LATOOR SINGH VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
KALABATI GUPTA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ASHISH @ NIRMAL& ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHAJI ASHRUBA FALAKE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2025-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM DAS VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
KALLU VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
DEENDAYAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-149] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN MITTAL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-233] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. RANVEER SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-146] [REFERRED TO]
JANABAI VASANT RAUT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. NAVED UR REHMAN [LAWS(DLH)-2016-3-181] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH SON OF JAGANNATH BHURJI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-431] [REFERRED TO]
GURUSAMY VS. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-101] [REFERRED TO]
DIPLAL RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2024-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUV KUMAR JAISWAL @ DHRUV PRASAD @ DHRUV SAO @ DHRUV SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH C B I [LAWS(PAT)-2019-5-29] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.8.2006, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.2152 of 2003, by way of which it has set aside the conviction of the respondents under Sections 498-A and 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and acquitted them.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are :-
A. That the deceased Kusum Rani got married to Hallu @ Chandrabhan, the 2nd respondent herein, in the year 2001. In her marital home, she was ill-treated by her parents-in-law, respondents 1 and 3 herein. They would constantly tell her that she was incapable of doing the house work properly, and her mother-in-law did not give her sufficient food to eat.

B. On 29.11.2002 at noon, when the deceased returned home after her bath in the pond, her mother-in-law hurled abuses at her and inquired what she had been doing at the pond. When she replied that she had been washing clothes there, her mother-in-law gave her few slaps, as a result of which the deceased began to cry. Her mother-in-law then directed her husband to burn her alive. Her father-in-law had thus poured kerosene on her and had asked his wife to set her on fire, as a result of which her mother-in-law lit a matchstick and threw the same at her. Since the deceased began to scream, her parents-in-law came out of the house and bolted the door from the outside. On hearing her shriek, a few villagers sent news of the same to her parents who resided in a neighboring village, at a distance of about half a kilometer. Her father, mother and uncle thus came to the place of occurrence. The door was opened by them, and the deceased was taken out.

C. The deceased Kusum narrated the said incident to her parents, and thereafter she was taken in a trolley to the Police Station, Nohta in a severely burnt condition, where she herself lodged a report narrating the incident, and at about 2 p.m., on the basis of the complaint, an FIR, Ex.P-17 was recorded.

D. The Investigating Agency made all the necessary arrangements in order to record her dying declaration and the Executive Magistrate P.K. Chaturvedi (PW.12), was called for the aforementioned purpose. Her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and subsequently, the deceased was admitted to the Government Hospital, Damoh at 3.25 p.m., where she died at 3.35 p.m. Intimation of her death was communicated by the hospital officials to the Police. The Investigating Agency thus took over the dead body of the deceased, and sent it for post-mortem. They also seized all the necessary articles from the spot, prepared the panchnama, and after recording the statements of the witnesses, submitted a charge sheet before the competent court, which in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Hence, trial commenced after framing charges under Sections 498-A, 302 and 306 IPC. The accused persons abjured their guilt.

E. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses, and placed reliance on Ex.P1 to P24. The respondents- accused took the defence of an alibi in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C'), stating that they had been in their agricultural field at the time of the said incident and it was here that they had received information about the incident. The deceased had committed suicide and they were being falsely been implicated.

F. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, in Sessions Trial No.305 of 2002, vide judgment and order dated 6.12.2003, after appreciating the material on record, recorded findings of fact to the effect that the deceased had not committed suicide, and that the respondents-accused were guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302, r/w Section 34 IPC. They were convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A IPC for two years RI and a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month RI; and under Section 302/34 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer further RI for 6 months.

G. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the respondents-accused challenged the same before the High Court, preferring Criminal Appeal No.2152 of 2003, which was allowed by the High Court vide its impugned judgment and order, acquitting all the accused.

Hence, this appeal.

(3.)Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned standing counsel has submitted, that the only ground taken by the High Court for reversing the judgment and order of the Trial Court was that conviction can be based solely upon a dying declaration, provided that the same is found to be trustworthy. However, in the instant case, as the deceased had 100 per cent burn injuries, she would not have in all probability, been in a position to make a statement. Additionally, in the absence of a certificate provided by a doctor to the extent that she had in fact been fit enough to make such a statement, the said dying declaration could not be relied upon, as she had died as a result of such injuries on her person, after traveling about 10 k.ms. from the place of occurrence to the Police Station. The High Court doubted her ability to speak and also the lodging of the FIR. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that Kusum had been ill-treated by her parents-in-law, and thus that they were responsible for causing her death. A person having 100 per cent burns can make a statement, and a certificate of fitness provided by a doctor is not a condition precedent for placing reliance upon a dying declaration. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.