NDLI: Jayamma & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code s. 302 r/w 34
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r/w 34 – Allegation that on account of previous dispute between the parties, accused with the intention to kill the victim went to her house, doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze – Acquittal by the trial court – However, the High Court on basis of the dying declaration and corroborative statement of the police officer who recorded the dying declaration and the doctor who endorsed the mental fitness of the victim to make such statement, convicted the accused u/s. 302 r/w 34 and imposed life imprisonment – On appeal, held: Conviction of the accused cannot be upheld only on the basis of the dying declaration – Narration of events in the dying declaration were so accurate to be believed – Injured victim was an illiterate old person and its beyond human probabilities to have been able to narrate the minutes of the incident with such accuracy – Owing to 80% burn injuries suffered by the victim on all vital parts of the body, the possibility of her not being in a fit state cannot be completely ruled out – Police Officer did not ask the doctor to make an endorsement of fitness of the victim before recording the statement – There is a serious contradiction between the statement of the doctor and the police officer in respect of the nature of burn injuries suffered on different body parts of the victim – Alleged motive for the homicidal death was doubtful – Unusual conduct and behaviour of victim’s son and her daughter-in-law support the parallel version that the victim might have committed suicide – Prosecution had sufficient time to call a Judicial/Executive Magistrate to record the dying declaration, however that was not done – Furthermore, the High Court dealt with the appeal against acquittal summarily and did not notice the glaring contradictions – The so-called motive has not been proved at all and the declaration, thus, recites a non-existent incident – Thus, the view taken by the trial court is fully endorsed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. Evidence Act, 1872: s. 32 - Dying declaration – Evidentiary value of – Sustenance of conviction solely based thereon – Held: When the dying declaration has been recorded in accordance with law, and it gives a cogent and plausible explanation of the occurrence, it can be relied upon as the solitary piece of evidence to convict the accused – Dying declaration is admitted in evidence on the premise that the anticipation of brewing death breeds the same human feelings as that of a conscientious and guiltless person under oath – It is the last words of a person which are presumed to be truthful, and not infected by any motive or malice – Thus, the dying declaration is admissible in evidence on the principle of necessity as there is very little hope of survival of the maker, and if found reliable, it can certainly form the basis for conviction. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378 – Appeal in case of acquittal – Exercise of power by High Court u/s. 378 – Held: Power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court u/s. 378 should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court was a ‘possible view’ – Unless the High Court finds that there is complete misreading of the material evidence which has led to miscarriage of justice, the view taken by the trial court which can also possibly be a correct view, need not be interfered with – This self-restraint doctrine, certainly, does not denude the High Court of its powers to re-appreciate the evidence, including in an appeal against acquittal and arrive at a different finding of fact.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant
Neutral Citation	2021 INSC 287
Petitioner	Jayamma & Anr
Respondent	State Of Karnataka
SCR	[2021] 5 S.C.R. 11
Judgement Date	2021-05-07
Case Number	758

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Jayamma & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanif Khan & Anr.

Jagdish and Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Deepak Rajak Vs. State of West Bengal

Amol Singh Vs. State of M.p.

Pankaj Vs. State of Rajasthan

State of M.p. Vs. Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr.

Omkar Singh Vs. Jaiprakash Narain Singh & Anr.

Kamal Vs. State (nct of Delhi)

Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Jayamma & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka

Jayamma & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Rajasthan Vs. Hanif Khan & Anr.

Jagdish and Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Deepak Rajak Vs. State of West Bengal

Amol Singh Vs. State of M.p.

Pankaj Vs. State of Rajasthan

State of M.p. Vs. Ramji Lal Sharma & Anr.

Omkar Singh Vs. Jaiprakash Narain Singh & Anr.

Kamal Vs. State (nct of Delhi)

Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Jayamma & Anr Vs. State of Karnataka