A. Som Nath v. State of Haryana

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. R. Krishna Iyer
E. S. Venkatramiah
Judgment Date: 1980-03-31
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed; conviction upheld.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; conviction upheld and no interference with concurrent findings of fact.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. Som Nath

Respondents

State of Haryana

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. C. Talukdar
• J. P. Malhotra
• J. D. Jain

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 3478 of 1979, examines a conviction for wife-burning sustained by concurrent findings of fact. The petitioner, A. Som Nath, challenges the conviction on the basis that the dying declarations relied upon under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act were unreliable due to gaps in detail and should not form the sole basis for the verdict. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had affirmed the trial court’s conviction; the petition contends that the dying declarations, treated as “groaning utterances” in agony, cannot be fully trusted for a robust factual picture. The Court, however, reiterates that dying declarations are admissible and should be weighed in the context of the entire record, not judged by the standard of complete or perfect testimony. Three dying declarations, when corroborated by other circumstances, are held to be sufficient to establish the offense. It rejects the argument that minor shortfalls render such statements unusable, labeling such a challenge as unrealistic and unconscionable where credibility exists. The bench stresses gender justice and holds that there is no justification to interfere with the conviction. The petition is dismissed, and the conviction stands, reinforcing the primacy of credible corroboration around dying declarations in serious offenses."

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Evidence Act, Section 32

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Dying declarations under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act are admissible and are to be treated as the groaning utterances of a dying person in agony; credibility can be established even with gaps if the surrounding circumstances support it.
Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed on the ground of enormity of improbability; credibility of dying declarations may be affirmed by corroboration from other circumstances.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the three dying declarations, though relevant under Section 32, should be discredited due to deficiencies and lack of full particulars; he argues that credibility must be tested against the standard of ordinary testimony, and seeks reversal or acquittal instead of reliance on dying declarations alone.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the dying declarations, corroborated by surrounding circumstances, suffice to prove the offense; the presence of multiple dying declarations and corroboration warrants upholding the conviction and not disturbing concurrent findings of fact.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

280 **A** SOM NATH _v._ STATE OF HARY.l\NA _March_ 31, 1980 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] **B** _**Indian**_ _**Evidence**_ _**Act**_ _**Section**_ _**32-Dying**_ _**Declaration-Value**_ _**of.**_ The petitioner was found guilty of burning his wife by the Courts below. **By** **Special Leave Petition, the Petitioner sought to discredit the dying** **declara··** lions. # ' ## c **D** E F **G** **H** Dismissing the petition, _**HEID**_ **:** **Concurrent** **findings** **of fact cannot** **be** **disturbed** **on enormity** **of** improbability. The dying declarations under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, are the groaning utterances of a dying woman in the grip of dreadful agony which cannot be judged by the standards of fullness of particulars which wit**nesses** **lll.3;Y** **give in other situations..** **To** **discredit such** **dying** **declarations for** **shortfalls** **here** **and** **there** **or** **even** **in** **many** **places,** **is** **unrealistic,** **unnatural** **and** unconscionable, if basically there is credibility. [280E-G] CruMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Cr!.) No. 3478 of 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 10-8-197.9 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Criininal Appeal No. 427/77. _N.C. Ta/ukdar, J.P._ _Malhotra_ and _J.D._ _Jain_ for the Petitioner The Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J., Wife burning-that atrocious species of murder horrendously escalating in some parts: of this country-is the shocking crime proved, according to two courts, by the prosecution in this case. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed save on enormity of improbability which we are unable to see in the present case. The three dying declarations corroborated by other circumstances are . sufficient in our view to bring home the offence. Counsel has sought ### to discredit these declarations relevant under s. 32 of the Evidence Act ~ forgetting that they are the groaning utterances of a dying woman in the grip of dreadful agony which cannot be judged by the standards of fullness of particulars which witnesses may give in other situations. To discredit such dying declarations for shortfalls here or there or even in many places is unrealistic, unnatural and unconscionable if basically there is credibility. The terrible in this case has taken place in the house and in the presence of the husband who has been convicted. · We hardly see any reason for interfering with this conviction, and would have been shocked ourselves if any other course had been adopted either by the trial court or by the High Court. Gender justice has a high place in Indian criminal jurisprudence. Dismissed. N.K.A. _Petition dismissed._