Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by special leave filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of Bhup Ram by the High Court of Rajasthan in a murder case. The respondent was accused of shooting his wife, Mst Chawli, on 20.7.1985 while she was sleeping in her parents' house. The prosecution case was that Chawli had first been married to the respondent's brother, who died, and thereafter she married the respondent, but the marriage was marred by frequent quarrels. On the night of the occurrence, the respondent allegedly went to her house and shot her with a pistol. Chawli told those present that her husband had shot her. A judicial magistrate recorded her dying declaration in the hospital, and she died at 2:30 PM. The police recovered a pistol based on information given by the respondent while in custody in connection with another case. The bullet recovered from her body and the pistol were sent to a ballistic expert, who opined that the bullet could have been fired from that pistol. During the trial, Chawli's father, sister, and a neighbour (who gave the first information) turned hostile and supported the respondent. The trial court, however, relied on the dying declaration recorded by the judicial magistrate and the recovery evidence, convicted the respondent under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted him, holding that the dying declaration was unreliable because it was recorded in Hindi while the deceased spoke Bagri and in narrative form rather than question-answer format, and that the recovery of the pistol was outside Section 27 of the Evidence Act because it was made during investigation of another case. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if reliable, and that language translation and format do not vitiate its evidentiary value. It noted that the judicial magistrate and the doctor deposed that the deceased was conscious, and there was no reason to doubt it. The court also held that Section 27 of the Evidence Act applies irrespective of whether the information was given in connection with the same or a different crime; the fact discovered is not the object but the place and knowledge of the accused. The conditions for Section 27 were satisfied here. The court further noted that the ballistic expert's report under Section 293 CrPC was admissible and corroborated the recovery. Concluding that the High Court had erred in discarding two valuable pieces of evidence, the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal, restored the trial court's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, and directed the Sessions Judge, Alwar, to take immediate steps to put the respondent in jail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability and Form - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The High Court discarded a dying declaration recorded by a judicial magistrate because it was recorded in Hindi while the deceased spoke Bagri and in narrative form rather than question-answer format. The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if reliable; translation from one language to another and the form of recording are immaterial, as what matters is substance over form. The court emphasised that judicial officers routinely translate statements and questions put to a dying person are formal, so the answers are material. Held that the dying declaration (Ex. P-8) was clear and unambiguous and its rejection was erroneous. (Paras 1-4) B) Indian Evidence Act - Discovery Statement - Section 27 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - The High Court excluded recovery of a pistol because it was effected during investigation of another case, holding it outside Section 27. The Supreme Court held that Section 27 applies irrespective of whether the information was supplied in connection with the same crime or a different crime. The fact discovered under Section 27 is not the object produced but the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused regarding it. The conditions under Section 27 were satisfied: fact discovered in consequence of information, accused in custody, and witness deposed to discovery. Referred to Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor and held the High Court erred in marginalising this evidence. (Paras 1-4) C) Criminal Procedure - Expert Report - Section 293 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 293 - The ballistic expert's report (Ext. P-14) was admissible under Section 293 CrPC and showed that the bullet could have been fired from the recovered pistol. The High Court overlooked this corroborative evidence. Held that such report is evidence without formal proof and relevant to connect the pistol with the bullet. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in discarding the dying declaration on grounds of language and form; whether recovery of pistol under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is admissible when made during investigation of another case
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal, restored the trial court's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, and directed the Sessions Judge, Alwar, to take immediate steps to put the respondent in jail.
Law Points
- Dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if reliable
- language and form of recording do not vitiate reliability
- Section 27 Evidence Act applies even when discovery is made during investigation of another case
- fact discovered includes place and knowledge not just object
- expert report under Section 293 CrPC is admissible evidence
