Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32 – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Dying Declaration – Of the victim, who had 100% burn injuries, held valid and reliable – Doctor confirmed she was in a conscious and competent state to give her statement – The Magistrate took due precautions and a Medical Officer was present during the recording of the dying declaration – Defense failed to challenge the credibility of the declaration on the grounds of the victim’s mental state, voluntariness, or outside influence – Dying declaration should not be discarded solely based on the extent of the victim’s injuries. [Para 29 , 32]
Evidence Act, 1872 Section 154 – Witness – Hostile witnesses – Threat and intimidation – Has been one of the major causes for the hostility of witnesses – Bentham said: “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in the court of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times even hardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence in the criminal justice delivery system – Reasons which can be discerned which make witnesses retracting their statements before the Court and turning hostile:
“(i) Threat/intimidation.
(ii) Inducement by various means.
(iii) Use of muscle and money power by the accused.
(iv) Use of Stock Witnesses.
(v) Protracted Trials.
(vi) Hassles faced by the witnesses during investigation and trial.
(vii) Non-existence of any clear-cut legislation to check hostility of witness.”
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 378 – Appeal against order of acquittal – The High Court was dealing with an appeal against the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants – Appeals against acquittal have a narrower scope than appeals against conviction — Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the State to appeal against acquittal but requires the High Court’s permission – An acquittal order reinforces the presumption of the accused’s innocence — The High Court, as an appellate court, can reevaluate evidence independently – The High Court should not substitute its findings unless there are strong reasons to differ from the trial court’s acquittal – If the trial court’s findings are plausible and not perverse, the appellate court should not replace them just because it reaches a different conclusion.
Held,
No doubt, the High Court was dealing with the appeal against the judgment of the trial court which had acquitted the appellants herein. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is undoubtedly narrower than the scope of appeal against conviction. section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers upon the State a right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against the order of acquittal. At the same time, sub-section (3) thereof mandates that such an appeal is not to be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Thus, before an appeal is entertained on merits, leave of the High Court is to be obtained which means that normally judgment of acquittal of the trial court is attached a definite value which is not to be ignored by the High Court. In other words, presumption of innocence in favour of an accused gets further fortified or reinforced by an order of acquittal. At the same time, while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to re appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it. However, this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal against the acquittal, is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. The appellate court, therefore, is within its power to re appreciate or review the evidence on which the acquittal is based. On reconsideration of the evidence on record, if the appellate court finds the verdict of acquittal to be perverse or against the settled position of law, it is duly empowered to set aside the same. On the other hand, if the trial court had appreciated the evidence in right perspective and recorded the findings which are plausible and the view of the trial court does not suffer from perversity, simply because the appellate court comes to a different conclusion on the appreciation of the evidence on record, it will not substitute its findings to that of findings recorded by the trial court. [Para 21, 22 and 24]
Evidence Act, 1872 Section 32 – Evidentiary value of Dying declaration – A dying declaration is admissible in evidence on the principle of necessity and can form the basis of conviction if it is found to be reliable.
Admissibility of Dying Declarations
Who Can Record the Declaration
Credibility of the Recording Authority
[Paras 27 and 28]
Comments 1