Answering a question about the admissibility and probative value of dying declaration recorded by the police, the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, held that "There is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate. Although a dying declaration ought to ideally be recorded by a Magistrate if possible, it cannot be said that dying declarations recorded by police personnel are inadmissible for that reason alone. The issue of whether a dying declaration recorded by the police is admissible must be decided after considering the facts and circumstances of each case."

Therefore, on the basis of the above law laid down, the Supreme Court held that The dying declaration makes it abundantly clear that the respondent raped the deceased, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire. The cause of death was septicemia, which occurred as a result of the burn injuries. Hence, the victim’s death was a direct result of the injuries inflicted upon her by the respondent. There is nothing on record which gives rise to reasonable doubt as to the respondent’s guilt."

The Court noted the facts that the case of the prosecution is that the respondent entered the house of the victim and deceased in Narangi village, on the afternoon of 7 November 2004. It is alleged that he pushed her to the ground and committed rape upon her, while threatening to kill her if she sounded an alarm. She called out for help, at which point the respondent allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with a matchstick. Her cries for help led to her grandfather, mother , and a resident of the village to come to her room. The respondent is alleged to have fled the scene upon seeing them.

Dr. RK Pandey certified that the victim was fit to make a statement and affixed his signature to the statement. Lallan Prasad (Investigating Officer) stated that Dr. RK Pandey was present when he recorded the statement of the deceased. d later, Suresh Yadav took over the investigation from him. Upon the completion of the investigation, the IO submitted a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for offences under Sections 307, 341, 376 and 448 of the IPC. The victim died on 14 December 2004, leading to the submission of a supplementary charge-sheet against the respondent, with reference to Section 302 of the IPC.

The Court observed that "High Court incorrectly observed that in his cross-examination, Dr. RK Pandey stated that he was examining another patient in the adjacent room when the victim’s dying declaration was recorded. The record of the cross-examination indicates that Dr. RK Pandey stated that he was examining a patient on the adjacent table (not in the adjacent room as erroneously stated by the High Court). The High Court mistakenly relied on this fact to hold that the victim’s statement could not be treated as her dying declaration. Dr. RK Pandey’s answer to the question he was asked during cross-examination makes it clear that the dying declaration cannot be rejected on the ground that he was in another room when it was recorded – he was evidently in the same room and the dying declaration was recorded by Lallan Prasad in his presence. Both Lallan Prasad and Dr. RK Pandey have attested to this fact during their examination(s)."

The Court said that we are therefore satisfied that the dying declaration was made voluntarily and is true. The deceased was in a competent state of mind when she made a statement to Lallan Prasad. 

Case Details:-

Criminal Appeal No 1441 of 2022
The State of Jharkhand    …Appellant
versus
Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai    …Respondent

Read the complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/36909/36909_2018_2_1501_39222_Judgement_31-Oct-2022.pdf