REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2003

State of Rajasthan                 ….Appellant  

Versus

Parmendra Singh ….Respondent

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the  

Rajasthan High Court,  Jodhpur, directing acquittal  of the respondent who  

faced  trial  alongwith  two  others  namely,  Smt.  Keshar  Kanwar  and  Tara  

Devi.  They faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under  

Sections 302, 498-A, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short  

the ‘IPC’). The trial Court acquitted the accused Keshar Kanwar from the  

charges  relatable  to  Section  498-A,  302/34,  201/34  and 120-B IPC.  The

accused Tara Devi was acquitted from the charges under Section 498-A and  

120-B. Respondent Parmendra Singh was acquitted from the charges under  

Sections 120-B and 201 read with Section 34 IPC but he was sentenced to  

undergo life imprisonment and three years RI  for the offences punishable  

under Section 302 and 498-A IPC respectively.

2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

On 1st February, 1992 Dr. Khushiram Tewani (PW-30) was working  

at the post of Medical Officer, Incharge at Primary Health Centre, Bagaur. In  

the afternoon on that day S.H.O., Bagaur brought Lalita, wife of respondent  

in  burnt  and  unconscious  condition  for  medical  treatment.  Lalita  was  

admitted  in  the  Primary  Health  Centre  by  him and initial  treatment  was  

given to her. In this regard, a slip Ex.P-58 was prepared. Lalita’s body was  

received with more than 80% burn injuries and considering her condition he  

could not give her medical treatment  due to lack of resources. Therefore,  

within  half  an  hour  she  was  referred  to  District  Hospital,  Bhilwara.  

According to Ex.P-58 at 3.05 in the afternoon Lalita  was brought  before  

him.  

2

There were several statements of the deceased which were treated as  

dying declarations.

The trial Court found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced as  

noted above basing on the dying declarations.  

In appeal, the High Court directed acquittal primarily on the ground  

that the dying declarations were not reliable. The Police Regulation relating  

to recording of dying declaration was violated and the deceased was not in a  

position to give her statement. It was noted that there was great variation  

between the dying declarations. There were four dying declarations in fact.  

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that in all the dying  

declarations name of the husband was mentioned and in all the four dying  

declarations the role played by the mother was also described except one  

where the father-in-law was named.   Learned counsel  for  the respondent  

supported the judgment of the High Court.

4. It  is  to  be noted that  the  High Court  observed that  the  first  dying  

declaration  was  to  be  disbelieved  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no  

3

endorsement that the deceased was in a fit condition to give statement. The  

view expressed is clearly contrary to what has been stated by this Court in  

Laxman v.  State  of  Maharashtra [2002 (6)  SCC 710].  So far as  the non  

observance of the procedure laid down in Police Regulation is concerned,  

this court had occasion to deal with the nature of  the police guidelines. It  

was observed that mere non-observance of the procedure indicated does not  

render the dying declaration suspect. So far as the first dying declaration is  

concerned, it was recorded at about 3.00 p.m. at PHC, Bagaur. The incident  

was around 2.00 p.m. The first dying declaration was recorded by the doctor  

(PW-30). The second was recorded by the SHO (PW-28). Third was by the  

Sub-Inspector (PW-15) in the presence of Dr. A.K. Mathur (PW-11) and two  

others.  Finally,  the  fourth  dying  declaration  was  recorded  before  S.S.  

Kothari (PW-13) ADM City, Bhilwara and Puran Chand Gupta, Assistant  

Collector, Bhilwara  in the presence of Dr. Arvind Malhotra (PW-12). In the  

last dying declaration it was noted by the doctor that the patient was in a fit  

condition to give statement.    

5. There  is  no  material  to  show that  the  dying  declarations  were  the  

result of tutoring or prompting. In all the dying declarations the respondent  

4

has  been  specifically  named,  and  the  role  played  by  him  has  been  

categorically described.  

6. That being so, the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal.  

The same is set aside. Respondent shall surrender to custody forthwith to  

serve the remainder of sentence.      

7. The appeal is allowed.  

……..…………………….….J (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………..……………..............J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)          

        New Delhi, May 04, 2009   

5