Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(2013) 7 S.C.R. 760 A ## KALIYA .. _v._ ·STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. ·228 of 2008) B JULY 23, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN ANO. S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] . . ## _PENAL CODE, 1860:_ c _s. 302- Married woman· burnt alive by her_ mother-in~law - - _(appellant) Conviction and sentence oflife imprisonment Held: In the dying declaration recorded by the doctor, the deceased stated that her mother-in-law.poured kerosene on_ - _her and set her on fire Carbon copy of dying declaration_ - _rightly admitted by trial court as secondary evidence No_ 0 _objection was raised at that time_ - _As the incident occurred in the house of appellant, and she was present therein at the relevant time, she could have furnished the explanation as_ - _to how and under what circumstances the· victim died The matter was within her special knowledge_ ""'" _Both the courts_ E _below rightly held· that appellant was responsible for causing_ - - _the death of deceased Evidence Act, 1872 ss. 63 and 65._ c ## _Evidence Act, 1872:_ F F _ss. 63 and 65(c)_ -- _'Secondary evidence'_ - _Witnesses concerned deposing that original dying declaration was not_ - _traceable Trial court granting permission to lead secondary. evidence and permitting carbon copy to be adduced in evidence_ - _Held: In view of provisions of ss. 63 and 65, such_ G _a course is permissible._ The mother-in-law of the deceased (appellant), her husband, and the father-in-law faced· trial for offences punishable u/ss. 302 and 498-IPC, on the allegation that H 760 761 ## · KALIYA _v._ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH they burnt alive the deceased for dowry, The trial court A convicted all the accused of the offences charged. However, the High Court maintained th~<conviction of.the appellant u/s, 302-IPC and acquitted the other accused of the charges. In the instant appeal it was mainly'contended for the appellant that since the original dying declaration was not filed before the trial court, the carbon copy of the· same could not have been exhibited and taken on record. B ## Dismissing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1. There is ample evidence on record to the effect that the deceased was admitted to hospital on 18.6.1984. However, her case sheet could not be deposited by the Clerk working in the hospital. PW.18, the doctor who examined the deceased, supported the case of the prosecution with respect to the admission of the deceased in the hospital and further that he recorded her dying declaration wherein she stated that when she was lying on the bed, her mother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire and ran away. He further deposed that the .deceased appended her thumb impression on the dying declaration. He also deposed that before recording her dying declaration, the deceased was in a fit mental condition. His statement stands fully corroborated by the evidence of the staff nurse, (PW.5) who was present at the time of recording the dying declaration. The testimony of both these witnesses remained unimpeached. [Para 5] [766-E-H) D E F 1.2. In the instant case, the dying declaration· G produced before the court was the carbon copy of the original. PW.16 and PW.17 clearly deposed that even after conducting an extensive search, the original dying declaration. could not be traced~ The trial court granted permission to lead secondary evidence and the same was H 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A adduced strictly in accordance with law and accepted by the courts below. In view of the provisions of SS. 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act 1872, such a course of action is permissible. In case an objection was not raised at the time of admission of the secondary evidences, it is B precluded from being raised at a belated stage. (Paras 5, 9 and 10] (766-H; 767-A-B; 768-F-G; 769-0-E] _State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh_ & _Ors._ AIR 2013 SC 2059; _State of Rajasthan v. Kishore,_ 1996 (2) SCR 1103 C =AIR 1996 SC 3035; _M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu_ & _Anr.,_ 2010 (11) SCR 38 = (2010) 9 SCC 712; _J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani,_ 2007 (5) SCR 367 = AIR 2007 SC 1721 - relied on _Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat,_ AIR 1992 D SC 2186; _Laxmi v. Om Prakash_ & _Ors.,_ 2001 ( 3) SCR 777 =AIR 2001 SC 2383 ; _Govindappa_ & _Ors. v._ State _of Karnataka,_ 2010 (6 ) SCR 962 = (2010) 6 SCC 533; _H. Siddiqui (D) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam_ 2011 (5 ) SCR 587 = AIR 2011 SC 1492; _Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal_ & _Anr. v ._ . E _M.S.S. Food Products,_ 2011 (14) SCR 1141 = (2012) 2 SCC 196); _The Roman Catholic Mission v. The_ State _of Madras,_ 1966 SCR 283 =AIR 1966 SC 1457; _Marwari Khumhar_ & _Ors. v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri_ & _Anr.,_ 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 368 = AIR 2000 SC 2629; _R. V.E. Venkatachala_ F _Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V. P. Temple_ & _Anr.,_ 4548 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 450 = AIR 2003 SC; _Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K. M. Shaffi,_ 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 336 = AIR 2004 SC 4082; _Life Insurance Corporation of India_ & _Anr. v. Rampa/ Singh Bisen_ 2010 (3) SCR 438 = (2010) 4 SCC - G 491 referred to _Narain Singh_ & _Anr. v. State of Haryana,_ AIR 2004 SC 1616 - held inapplicable 1.3. PW.18, the doctor who examined the deceased H and recorded ,her statement, deposed that 100% burnt KALIYA _v._ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 763 patient can also be in a fit mental and physical condition A to give statement. PW.14, the doctor who performed the post-mortem, deposed that the deceased was completely burnt and the burn injuries were anti-mortem. She had died due to asphyxia, as a result of burn injuries and her death was homicidal. As the incident occurred in the B house of the appellant, and she was present therein at the relevant time, she could have furnished the explanation as to how and under what circumstances the victim died. The matter was within her special knowledge. Both the courts below have, thus, rightly held that the c appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. [Paras 12 and 13] [770-D-E; F-G] ## Case Law Reference: |AIR 2013SC2059|relied on|Para 7|D| |---|---|---|---| |AIR 1992SC2186|referredto|Para 7|| |2001(3)SCR777|referredto|Para 7|| |2010 (6) SCR 962|referredto|Para 7|E| |1996(2)SCR1103|relied on|Para 8|| |AIR 2004SC1616|held inapplicable Para 9||| |2011(5)SCR587|referredto|Para 10|| |2011(14) SCR1141|referredto|Para 10|F| |1966 SCR283|referredto|Para 10|| |2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 368|referredto|Para 10|| |2003(4)Supp._SCR 450|referredto|Para 10|G| |2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 336|referredto|Para10|| |2010 (3) SCR438|referredto|Para 10|| H 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A > 2010 (11) SCR 38 relied on . Para 11 > 2007 (5) SCR 367 relied on · · Para 11 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2008. B From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1992. S.K. Dubey, Ambuj Agarwal, Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, C Yogesh Tiwari, B.S. Banthia, Vibha Datta Makhija, Archi Agnihotri for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred D against the judgment and order dated 6.1 i2005, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 1992, affirming the judgment and order dated 10.1.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in. E. Sessions Trial .No.5 of 1985. By this order the appellant h·ad been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- had also been imposed, and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for three months. F 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: > A. Thafon 18.6.1984, Guddi, daughter-in-law of the present appellant. Smt.. Kaliya was admitted to J.A .. Hospital, Gwalior in a burnt condition. Her dying declaration was G recorded and she died of the burn injuries on the same day. Information from hospital was .given to Police Station, Jhansi Road, Gwalior. Her dead body was sent for post-mortem and all formalities were properly completed. 8. An FIR was lodged and after the completion of the H KALIYA _v._ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 765 [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.] investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant A alongwith her husband and son under Section 498-A IPC, the appellant was additionally charged under Section 302 IPC . . C. The prosecution examined a large number of witnesses including Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta (PW.18) who recorded the 8 dying declaration, Merry Kutti Michael (PW.5), the staff Nurse who was present at the time of recording the dying declaration. After the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove, though, other co-accused Amar Singh (son of the C appellant). and Bheema (husband of the appellant) stood convicted under Section 498~A IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years. · D. The appellant as well as the other co~accused filed . Criminal Appeal Nos. 23 and 17 of 1992, respectively before D the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellant vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.12.2005 but allowed the appeal of the other coaccused acquitting them of the said charges. E Hence, this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri S.K. Dubey, learned Senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel for the respondent-State. · F 4. The I rial Court as well as the High Court relied mainly· upon the dying declaration made by Guddi, deceased wherein she had stated that she was subjected to harassment by her mother-in~law, present appellant, her father-in-law and her husband. So far as the incident dated 18.6.1984 was G concerned, Gudd~ suffered 100 per cent burn injuries at her house. After hearing commotion, some neighbours reached the place of occurrence and extinguished the fire by pouring water on her body and took her to the hospital. In the hospital her dying declaration was recorded wherein she had specifically H 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. - A stated "I was lying on the cot then my mother-in-law by pouring kerosene oil and setting fire in my silk saree ran away". Dr. (Miss.) Bharti Kanned who was on duty and Merry Kutti Michael, Staff Nurse (PW.5) were witnesses to the dying declaration recorded by Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta (PW.18). In - s the FIR there is a full reference of the dying declaration recorded by Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta (PW.18). After the death, the postmortem was conducted wherein it was opined that she died of burn injuries. If she had been admitted in the hospital with 100% burns she would not be in a state to get her dying declaration - c recorded. The whole emphasis before the courts below as well as before this Court has been that the dying declaration cannot be relied upon since the original of the same had not been filed by the prosecution and the carbon copy could not have been exhibited and taken on record. It has been further contended - D that even if the carbon copy could be relied upon it may have been tampered with as is evident from many interpolations and cuttings. 5. There is ample evidence on record particularly, the statement of Dr. B.L. Jain (PW.16} and F.A. Khan {PW.17} to E the effect that Guddi, deceased was admitted to J.A. Hospital on 18.6.1984. However, her case sheet could not be deposited by the Clerk working in the hospital. Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta (PW.18} supported the case of the prosecution with respect to the admission of Guddi in the hospital and further that he F recorded her dying declaration wherein she had stated that when she was lying on the bed, her mother-in-law poured kerosene oil on her and set her on fire and ran away. He further deposed that Guddi appended her thumb impression on the dying declaration. He also deposed that before recording her G dying declaration, Guddi was in a fit mental condition. His statement stands fully corroborated by the evidence of Merry Kutty Michael, the staff nurse, (PW.5} who was present at the time of recording her dying declaration. The testimony of both these witnesses, namely, Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta (PW.18) and Merry Kutty Michael (PW.5) remained unimpeached. Dr. Ninnal H Kumar Gupta (PW.18) in his cross-examination explained that KALIYA _v._ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 767 [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN,J.] > Ex.P.4 was the carbon copy of the original. Dr. B.L. Jain A (PW.16) and F.A. Khan (PW.17) clearly deposed that even after conducting an extensive search, the original dying declaration could not be traced. In view of the provisions of Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act B 1872'). such a course of action is permissible. 6. The original record reveal that as the original dying declaration was not traceable/available, the prosecution was permitted to adduce secondary evidence. In this regard, the Trial Court passed several orders from time to time as is evident from the orders dated 4.9.1990, 15.10.1990, 7.11.1990, 8.12.1990, 26.12.1990, 25.2.1991 and 14.3.1991. And ultimately, on 13.4.1991, on being satisfied that the original dying declaration was not traceable, the Trial Court granted permission to the prosecution for adducing the secondary evidence. 7. This Court has examined the issue of putting a thumb impression on the dying declaration by 100% burnt person in _State_ of _Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh_ & _Ors._ AIR 2013 SC 2059, and after considering a large number of cases including _Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat,_ AIR 1992 SC 2186; _Laxmi v._ Om _Prakash_ & _Ors.,_ AIR 2001 SC 2383; and _Govindappa_ & _Ors. v. State of Kamataka,_ (2010) 6 SCC 533 came to the conclusion as under:- C D E F _"The Jaw on the issue can be summarised to the effect that law does not provide who can record_ a _dying declaration, nor is there any prescribed form, format, or procedure for the same. The person who records_ a _dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in_ a _fit_ G _state of mind and is capable of making such_ a _statement. Moreover, the requirement of_ a _certificate provided by a Doctor in respect of such state of the .deceased, is not essential in every case._ H 768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20131 7 S.C.R. A _Undoubtedly, the subject of the evidentiary value and acceptability of_ a _dying declaration, must be approached with caution for the reason that the maker of such_ a _statement cannot be subjected to crossexamihation. However, the court may not look for_ B _corroboration of_ a _dying clec/arat1on, unless the declaration suffers from any infirmity._ _So far as the question of thumb impression_ is _concerned, the same depends upon facts, as regards whether the skin of the thumb that_ was _placed upon the_ C _dying declaration was also burnt. Even in case of such bums in the body, the skin of_ a small _part of the body, i.e. of the thumb, may remain intact. Therefore, it is_ a · _question of fact regarding whether the skin of the thumb had in fact been completely burnt, and if not, whether the_ o _ridges and curves had· remained intact."_ 8. In _State of Rajasthan v. Kishore,_ AIR 1996 SC 3035, in an identical case, this Court placed reliance on the dying declaration and upheld the conviction. 9. Shri S.K. Dubey has placed much reliance on the E judgment of this Court in _Narain Singh_ & _Anr. v. State of Haryana,_ AIR 2004 SC 1616, wherein the court acquitted the accused persons only on the ground that the dying declaration itself was not proved and, therefore the question of acting on it could not arise. The ratio of the said judgment has no F application in the instant case as mentioned hereinabove. In the instant case, the Trial Court had granted permission to lead secondary evidence and the same had been adduced strictly in accordance with law and accepted by the courts below. G 10. Section 65(c) of the Act 1872 provides that secondary evidence can be adduced relating to a document when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason, not arising from his own default, or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. The court is obliged to examine the probative value of H KALIYA _v._ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 769 [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.] documents produced in court or their contents and decide the A question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence. (Vide: _H. Siddiqui (dead) by Lrs. v. A. Ramalingam,_ AIR 2011 SC 1492; and _Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal_ & _Anr. v. M.S.S. Food Products,_ (2012) 2 SCC 196). However, the secondary evidence of an ordinary document is admissible only and only B when the party desirous of admitting it has proved before the ·court that it was not in his possession or control of it and further, that he has done what could be done to procure the production of it. Thus, the party has to account for the non-production in one of the ways indicated in the section. The party further has c to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. When the party gives in evidence a certified copy/ secondary evidence without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, the opposite party must raise D an objection at the time of admission. In case, an objection is not raised at that point of time, it is precluded from being raised at a belated stage. Further, mere admission of a document in .evidence does not amount to its proof. Nor, mere marking of _:_ exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which E is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. (Vide: _The Roman Catholic Mission v. The State of Madras,_ AIR 1966 SC 1457; _Marwari Khumhar_ & _Ors. v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri_ & _Anr.,_ AIR 2000 SC 2629; _R. V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P._ F _Temple_ & _Anr.,_ AIR 2003 SC 4548; _Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi,_ AIR 2004 SC 4082; and _Life Insurance Corporation of India_ & _Anr. v. Rampa/ Singh Bisen,_ (2010) 4 sec 491). 11. In _M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu_ & _Anr.,_ (2010) 9 sec 712, this Court considered this aspect in detail and held as under: G _"We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court. It is true that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of_ a _document must adduce primary evidence of the_ H (2013] 7 S.C.R. 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - A _contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents_ - B _or in another form. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact_ a _true copy of the original. It should be emphasised that the exceptions to the rule requiring primary evidence are designed to provide relief in_ a _case_ - c _where a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party. n_ A similar view has been re-iterated in _J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani,_ AIR 2007 SC 1721. 12. Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta (PW.18), deposed that 100% D burnt patient can also be in a fit mental and physical condition to give statement. Dr. V.K. Deewan (PW.14), who performed the post-mortem of deceased Guddi, deposed that she was completely burnt and the burn injuries were anti-mortem. She had died due to Asphyxia, due to burn injuries, her death was E homicidal. In view thereof, both the courts below were of the considered opinion that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of Guddi, deceased. F 13. The defence taken by the appellant that she had gone out of her house to provide water to the buffalo has been disbelieved by the Court. As the incident occurred in the house of the appellant, and she was present therein at the relevant time, she could have furnished the explanation as to how and G under what circumstances Guddi died. The rnatter was within her special knowledge. 14. In view of the above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. H R.P. Appeal dismissed.