Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.
1.
Page1
3.
The deceased
Rajiv
The
To complete
Page 3 of 18
Page3
4
Page4
Savita had 100 per cent burn injuries, there was urgency for
PSI Sunil Eknadi Wanjari PW4 to record her statement and in
such circumstances failure to obtain medical evidence or to
wait for the Magistrate was not a fetter to the reliability of
the said DD.
9.
presence
of
appellant,
Prabhabai
(mother of deceased) as well as Vimal
(land lady of deceased) on the spot at
the time of incident.
(b)
Similarly,
Savita,
Prabhabai,
Vimal
sustained burn injuries and were
admitted in the hospital is also not
disputed.
(c)
(d)
10.
11.
He further
Page 5 of 18
Page5
15.
Undoubtedly, as
In the
The
Page 7 of 18
Page7
noted.
17.
18.
the
incident
can
also
be
held
to
be
in question.
19.
taken
in
the
same
transaction
and
Admittedly,
Page 9 of 18
Page9
Section 6 is as follows :
6. Relevancy of facts forming part of
same transaction - Facts which, though not
in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue
as to form part of the same transaction, are
relevant, whether they occurred at the same
time and place or at different times and places.
Illustrations
xxxxxxx
21.
Thus,
when
dying
declaration
relating
to
1
Page10
State
(AIR
1955
Trav-Co
104)
as follows :
The view that the statement of one dead
person is not a relevant fact with respect to
the question about the death of another
person or with respect to the causing of hurt to
a third is too narrow to be accepted. To
exclude from the evidence statements made
by a deceased person as to incidents which
occurred during the course of the transaction
which resulted in his death statements other
than those relating to the cause of his death,
would be to import a limitation to the words
used in the section which their natural
meaning does not warrant. When a limitation
like that is intended, the Legislature specially
provides for it.
In doing so, the High Court also relied upon an early Madras
Judgment in Re P. Subbu Thevan [2 Weir 750 (B)] and
Judgment of Rangoon High Court in Nga His Din vs.
Emperor (AIR 1936 Rang 187) but dissented from the view
taken by the Allahabad High Court in Kunwarpal Singh vs.
Emperor (AIR 1948 All 170) . The Bombay High Court in
th
Page 11 of 18
Page11
Such DD was
The DD and
23.
Baisakhi and since she died, the question was whether her
statement was admissible about the cause of death of
Baisakhi.
returned to her house and her dead body was found on the
next day. The question before the Court was whether the
statement of Aghani was admissible about the cause of
death of Baisakhi, the Court held :
In the case before us, the statements made
by Aghani do not relate to the cause of her
death or to any of the circumstances relating
to her death; on the contrary, the statements
relate to the death of her sister. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the statements
do not come within Section 32(1) of the
Evidence Act and, indeed, Mr. Dhebar
appearing on behalf of the State, has conceded
that Section 32(1) does not apply to the
statements
of Aghani.
Page 13 of
Page13
The
matter
was
again
considered
in
Sharad
It was
observed :
10. ..Coming now to the question of
interpretation of Section 32(1) of The Evidence
Act, this Court in the case of Ratan Gond v.
State of Bihar (1959 SCR 1336 : AIR 1959 SC
18 : 1959 Cri LJ 108), S.K. Das, J. made the
following observations:
The only relevant clause of Section 32
which may be said to have any bearing is
clause (1) which relates to statements made
by a person as to the cause of his death or as
to any of the circumstances of the transaction
which resulted in his death. In the case before
us, the statements made by Aghani do not
relate to the cause of her death or to any of
the circumstances relating to her death; on the
contrary, the statements relate to the death of
her sister.
In the Law of Evidence by Woodroffe &
Ameer Ali, (Vol. II) the authors have collected
all the cases at one place and indicated their
conclusions thus:
To sum up, the test of the relevancy of a
statement under Section 32(1), is not what the
final finding in the case is but whether the
cause of the death of the person making the
statement comes into question in the case. The
expression any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death is
wider in scope than the expression the cause
of his death; in other words, clause (1) of
Section 32 refers to two kinds of statements:
(1) statement made by a person as to the
cause of his death, and (2) the statement
made by a person as to any of the
circumstances of the transaction which
resulted in his death.
2 (1984) 4 SCC 116
1
Page14
Page 15 of
Page15
25.
1
Page16
incident.
Though,
the
version
found
to be false.
27.
The said
Page 17 of
Page17
...J.
[DIPAK MISRA]
....J.
[ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 26, 2015
1
Page18