Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the reversal of an acquittal by the Punjab High Court in a murder case. The appellant Bakshish Singh and his brother Gurbakshi Singh were tried under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Bachhinder Singh. The Sessions Court acquitted both accused, but the State appealed to the High Court, which heard the appeal against Bakshish Singh alone as Gurbakshi Singh was absconding and convicted him. The appellant then obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The incident occurred on August 1, 1954, between 7 and 8 p.m. in village Kairon, when Bachhinder Singh was shot in a lane in front of his house and died the next day in a hospital at Amritsar. He was accompanied by his younger brother Narvel Singh, a boy of 13. After being injured, Bachhinder Singh returned home and informed his father Bhagwan Singh about the assailants. He was taken to a hospital at Kairon and then to V.J. Hospital at Amritsar. At the hospital, a doctor informed the police, and Head Constable Maya Ram recorded the dying declaration of Bachhinder Singh, Exhibit P-H, in the presence of Dr. Mahavir Sud. The declaration formed the basis of the first information report. The prosecution case relied on the dying declaration, the testimony of Narvel Singh as an eyewitness, and the statement made by the deceased to his father. An extra-judicial confession to Teja Singh was rejected by both lower courts. The Sessions Court rejected the dying declaration on the grounds that the deceased spoke in Punjabi but the statement was recorded in Urdu, and that interested persons were present and the statement was a 'touched up' version. The Supreme Court considered whether the dying declaration was reliable, whether its long narrative exceeded the scope of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether the prosecution's failure to examine an eyewitness named in the declaration drew an adverse inference. The Court found that in Punjab, the language used in subordinate courts and by police for recording statements had always been Urdu, and therefore recording a Punjabi statement in Urdu was not an infirmity. The Court held the dying declaration was voluntary and made without prompting, as confirmed by the independent testimony of Dr. Mahavir Sud. The Court also observed that a dying declaration should contain only the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, and that long details outside this scope should be avoided unless necessary for coherence. It recommended that rules be framed for recording dying declarations. On the non-examination of a witness, the Court held that there was no obligation on the prosecution to examine every witness and that the court would not interfere with the prosecutor's discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, affirming the High Court's appreciation of evidence and the authenticity of the dying declaration.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Scope of Statement under Section 32(1) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - A dying declaration must be confined to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death; a long narrative including many prior incidents is more in the nature of a first information report and may raise doubts about genuineness. The Court held that extraneous details should not be included unless necessary for coherence or completeness and recommended that rules be framed for recording dying declarations. B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability of Recording in Urdu while Declarant Spoke Punjabi - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32(1) - The trial court rejected the dying declaration because the deceased spoke in Punjabi but it was recorded in Urdu. The Supreme Court held that in Punjab the language of courts and police has always been Urdu, so recording a statement in Urdu did not mean it failed to reproduce the declarant's words. The dying declaration was voluntary and made without prompting. C) Criminal Procedure - Prosecution Evidence - Discretion of Prosecutor in Calling Witnesses - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The prosecution did not examine a witness named in the dying declaration as an eyewitness, claiming he had been won over. The Court held that there is no obligation on the prosecution to examine every witness and the court will not interfere with the prosecutor's discretion in the absence of improper motive; no adverse inference should be drawn.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration recorded in Urdu while the deceased spoke Punjabi was reliable; whether the long narrative dying declaration exceeded the permissible scope of Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872; whether prosecution's failure to examine an eyewitness named in the dying declaration warranted an adverse inference
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction of Bakshish Singh for murder, and affirmed the High Court's finding that the dying declaration was voluntary and reliable, and that no adverse inference arose from non-examination of a witness.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Dying declaration must relate to cause of death or circumstances of transaction resulting in death under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- recording dying declaration in Urdu while declarant spoke Punjabi is not an infirmity in Punjab because official language of courts and police is Urdu
- prosecution has discretion not to examine every witness and court will not draw adverse inference without improper motive
- long narrative dying declaration exceeding scope of Section 32(1) may raise doubts about genuineness
