Supreme Court of India
HEERALALversusSTATE OF M.P.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 346
- Decided
- 16 March 2009
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction under Section 302 IPC is unsafe due to the discrepancies in the dying declarations and the lack of evidence of coercion, and is therefore set aside.
Summary
Heeralal, the husband of Prema Bai, was convicted by the trial court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court for murder under Section 302 IPC. The case hinged on two dying declarations of the deceased: one recorded by a Naib Tehsildar before a doctor, stating she attempted to set herself ablaze, and another recorded later by a different Naib Tehsildar with a contradictory account. The Supreme Court observed that the trial and High Courts had drawn abrupt conclusions about possible coercion by the accused's relatives without any material evidence. Given the clear discrepancies between the two dying declarations and the lack of proof of undue influence, the Court held that it was unsafe to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction for murder can be upheld when the sole substantive evidence consists of two inconsistent dying declarations.
- Whether the inference that the deceased was coerced into giving a false dying declaration is justified in the absence of material evidence.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302
Subjects
murderdying declarationSection 302 IPCevidence reliabilitycoercionappellate review
Judgment
(2009] 4 S.C.R. 283
HEERALAL A
v
STATE OF M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2009
MARCH 16, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
JJ.)
~
.Ji. Penal Code, 1860:
Section 302 - Appellant convicted for murder of his wife c
- Upheld by High Court - On appeal, Held: In view of the
discrepancies in the two dying declarations, one before the
Doctor and another before the Naib Tehsildar, it is unsafe to
convict the appellant - Conviction set aside - Evidence -
Dying declaration.
~
'<\ D
The appeal against High Court upholding the
conviction under s.302 IPC relates to two different dying
declarations and the apparent discrepancies therein.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
E
HELD: The trial court and the High Court came to
abrupt conclusions on the purported possibility that the
• relatives of the accused may have compelled the
deceased to give a false dying declaration. No material
was brought on record to justify such a conclusion. The F
evidence of the Nayab Tehsildar who recorded· Exh.D4
was examined as PW8. His statement was clear to the
effect that nobody else was present when he was
recording the statement. That being so, in view of the
apparent discrepancies in the two dying declarations it G
would be unsafe to convict the appellant.[Para 6) [285-H;
286-A-B]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 473 of 2009
283 H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.
A From the Judgement and Order dated 05.03.2008 of the .,
#'
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal
Appeal No. 114 of 1994.
S.S. Tewari, M.P. Singh, Vipin Gupta, for the Appellant.
B Vibha Datta Makhija, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
,..
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
"
1. Leave granted.
c
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur upholding
the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(in short the 'IPC').
D 3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows : ~
•
Prema Bai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') died
on 18. 7.1992 in District Hospital, Chhatarpur. The appellant is
the husband of the deceased.
E Relationship of the deceased was not cordial with the
appellant because she was not beautiful. Beside that her
brother-in-law attempted to commit rape on her and a
Panchayat was convened by the deceased. The father-in-law
and uncle-in-law of accused executed an agreement Exhibit (P-
F 4) and assured that no such incident shall occur in future.
Consequently, the deceased on 18-6-1992 came back to her
husband house. On 19-6-1992, a quarrel took place between
the appellant and the deceased. Consequently, the appellant
sprinkled kerosene oil on the deceased and set her ablaze. On
G
20-6-1992, deceased was taken to Londhi hospital wherefrom
she was referred to District Hospital, Chhatarpur, where she •
died on 18-7-1992. FIR was lodged. The dying declaration of
deceased was recorded, investigation was triggered off and after
completion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted.
The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.
H
HEERALAL V. STATE OF M.P. 285
[DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. A
His defence is that he brought the deceased in burnt condition
to the hospital, along with his parents and uncle for treatment.
He was apprehended by the police at the hospital. The
deceased got burnt during cooking meals, Hemwati Bai came
to her working place and informed regarding the incident. The B
witnesses are lying to take revenge of previous grudge.
The prosecution examined seven witnesses while the
accused appellant examined eight witnesses in defence. After
hearing the parties and on consideration of the evidence and
material on record, the trial court convicted the appellant for C
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as noted above.
Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, an appeal
was filed before the High Court where the primary stand was
that there was a lot of difference in the statements made. There
are two dying declarations (Exh.D4 and Exh.03). Therefore the D
trial court was not justified in holding the appellant guilty. The
stand of the State on the other hand before the High Court was
that the first Dying Declaration (Exh.D4) was a result of pressure
and therefore the same has been rightly discarded. The High
Court upheld the contention of the State and dismissed the E
appeal.
4. The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated.
5. Undisputedly, in the first dying declaration recorded by
a Nayab Tehsildar, it has been clearly stated that she tried to F
set herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on herself, but in the
subsequent declaration, recorded by the another Nayab
Tehsildar, a contrary statement was made. It appears that one
dying declaration earlier was made before the Doctor. The trial
court referred to the evidence of Dr. Chaturvedi who stated that G
~1 the deceased was admitted on bed No.8, but the father of the
deceased stated that her daughter w~s admitted on some other
bed number.
6. The trial court and the High Court came to abrupt
conclusions on the purported possibility that the relatives of the H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.
A accused may have compelled the deceased to give a false
dying declaration. No material was brought on record to justify
such a conclusion. The evidence of the Nayab Tehsildar who
recorded Exh.04 was examined as PW8. His statement was
clear to the effect that nobody else was present when he was
B recording the statement. That being so, in view of the apparent
discrepancies in the two dying declarations it would be unsafe
to convict the appellant.
7. The conviction is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Let
the appellant be released from custody forthwith unless he is .
C required to be in custody in connection with any other case.
GN. Appeal allowed.
,.
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search