NDLI: The State of Jharkhand Vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Evidence Act 1872
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
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 32(1) – Dying declaration – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 376, 341 and 448 – Victim was raped and set on fire – Respondent was convicted u/ss. 302, 341, 376, 448 by the Sessions Court on the basis of dying declaration of the victim, and sentenced – Judgment set aside by High Court inter alia holding that the statement made by the deceased is not admissible as a dying declaration, respondent was acquitted – On appeal, held: Postmortem report concludes that the cause of death is septicemia caused by the burn injuries sustained by the victim – Statement of the victim satisfies the conditions laid down in s. 32(1) as it relates to both, the cause of death as well as to the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death – Her statement clearly described that the respondent poured kerosene on her and set her on fire – Statement of the deceased satisfies the conditions in s. 32(1) and is itself a relevant fact – It is a dying declaration – Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of High Court set aside – Sessions Court’s judgment convicting the respondent and the order sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable u/s. 302 and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence punishable u/s. 376 is restored – Sentences to run concurrently– Evidence Act, 1872 –s. 60.Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 32(1) – Dying declaration – Admissibility and probative value of – Held: There is no rule mandating the corroboration of the dying declaration through medical or other evidence, when the dying declaration is not otherwise suspicious – Further, 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 – Also, the fact that the dying declaration is not in the form of questions and answers does not impact either its admissibility or its probative value – In the present case, the dying declaration was recorded in the victim’s words and read out to her, after which she affixed her signature to it– Victim was in a competent state of mind when she made the statement – It was made voluntarily and is true.Criminal Law – Evidence –Witnesses – Victim raped and set on fire – Family members of the victim-deceased and other persons known to her were declared hostile – Effect of, if any on prosecution’s case – Factors responsible for witnesses turning hostile – Discussed.Penal Code, 1860 – s. 375 – Two finger test – Deprecation of – Directions issued to Union Government and the State Governments –Held: Any person who conducts the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination (while examining a person alleged to have been subjected to a sexual assault) in contravention of the directions of Supreme Court shall be guilty of misconduct – Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 53A.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1139
Petitioner	The State Of Jharkhand
Respondent	Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai
SCR	[2022] 13 S.C.R. 1033
Judgement Date	2022-10-31
Case Number	1441

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

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai

Please Log-in to view this content

Harendra Rai Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs. State of N.c.t. of Delhi and Ors.

Aman Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Ram Kumar Pande Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Tarseem Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration

Thimmappa Rai Vs. Ramanna Rai and Ors.

State of Karnataka Vs. Shariff

Kailash Vs. State of M.p.

State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Harendra Rai Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs. State of N.c.t. of Delhi and Ors.

Aman Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Ram Kumar Pande Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Tarseem Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration

Thimmappa Rai Vs. Ramanna Rai and Ors.

State of Karnataka Vs. Shariff

Kailash Vs. State of M.p.

State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai