DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Session 2022-2023
B.A. LLB.- Semester VI

EVIDENCE LAW PROJECT WORK

TITLE:

SUBMITTED TO:
Mr Gautam gupta
Assistant Professor of Law, DNLU Jabalpur

SUBMITTED BY:
Rohit singh
BA/LLB/079/20
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It gives me immense pleasure to extend my heartful gratitude towards the

Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur, M.P., Mr. V Nagaraj (Vice-
Chancellor Sir), I would like to thank Mr Gautam gupta (The Assistant Professor of
Law) who guided me with the technique and methodology which unilaterally
improved the research project. I would also like to thank my parents and other
members of my family who continuously helped me through the whole research
procedure by sharing their words of wisdom. I thank them for their guidance
throughout my journey and helping me out with the intricate details of this topic
and helping me out with things which I couldn’t have done on my own.
The completion of this project required constant assistance from many people and I’m
really thankful towards them for having supported me in my project. While any
mistakes are solely mine and should not degrade the integrity of those valued.

Rohit singh
Introduction

In the case of Jayamma & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka, 2021 with Lachma s/o
Chandyanaika & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka, 2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India delivered a judgment on May 7, 2021, which focused on the issue of dying
declarations. This case had gone through all levels of the judicial system in India,
including the Trial Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court, where the final
verdict was given. The Supreme Court provided a detailed explanation of the
significance of a dying declaration, which was deemed to be a crucial piece of
evidence in a murder trial. The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal aspects
related to dying declarations, based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Jayamma & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka.
SECTION AND CONCEPT

Under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a dying declaration refers to a
statement of facts made by a deceased person, either in writing or verbally, explaining
the circumstances leading to their death. This legal term is also known as "Leterm
mortem," meaning "words before death." To be considered admissible in court, a
dying declaration must be recorded with great care and meet certain essential
requirements, including:

1 The person making the statement must be in a sound state of mind at the time of
making the declaration.

2 A medical practitioner must certify the fit state of mind of the deceased person. In
the absence of a medical practitioner, a witness can testify to the victim's soundness
of mind.

3 The statement must not have been made under any influence or pressure.

4 If the deceased person gives multiple statements, and they are not consistent with
each other, then all the dying declarations lose their value.
FACTS OF THE CASE

The case in question involves a quarrel between two parties, the Appellants and the
Respondents, who were known to each other. The prosecution alleged that there was
hostility between the families of both parties. On September 10, 1998,
Thippeswamynaika, son of the Respondents, injured and assaulted the husband of the
Appellant, Reddinaika, which led to a confrontation on September 21, 1998, when the
Appellants demanded Rs. 4000 for the medical treatment cost incurred by Reddinaika.
The Appellants poured kerosene liquid on the Respondent, Jayamma, and set her on
fire. Jayamma was seriously injured and later died due to shock from extensive burn
injuries.

The police registered the complaint under Section 307, 504, 114, and Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on the statement given by the injured Jayamma.
Due to the severity of Jayamma's injuries, she was referred to a government hospital,
where she later died. The police requested the Court to register the offense under
Section 302 read with Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 instead of Section
307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

During the investigation, the Appellants were arrested but later obtained anticipatory
bail and were released. The Trial Court found the evidence submitted by the
prosecution to be vague and unsatisfactory and acquitted the Appellants. The
Prosecution appealed to the High Court of Karnataka, where the questions of whether
the death was homicidal or suicidal, the statement recorded before the officer was
made when the injured was in a fit state of mind, and whether the statement made
before the officer could be relied upon to build a strong foundation for proving the
Appellants' conviction were put forward.

The High Court found that the evidence submitted, including the dying declaration,
was enough to convict the Appellants and held them guilty under Section 302 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all the witnesses turned hostile
and did not support the Prosecution's case, except for the police officer and the doctor
who supported the Prosecution.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellants filed two criminal appeals
before the Supreme Court. The Court considered the evidence presented, including
the dying declaration, the nature of the burn injuries, and the statements of the police
officer and the doctor.

The Court held that the evidence submitted by the prosecution was sufficient to
establish the guilt of the Appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. The dying declaration
was found to be reliable and credible, as it was made by the deceased in a fit state of
mind and was consistent with the other evidence presented. The Court also noted that
the nature of the burn injuries was consistent with the Appellants' intention to kill the
deceased.

The Court rejected the Appellants' argument that the prosecution had failed to prove
their case beyond a reasonable doubt, stating that the evidence submitted was clear
and convincing. The Court found that the Trial Court had erred in acquitting the
Appellants and upheld the High Court's decision to convict the Appellants under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In conclusion, the case involved a heated confrontation between two parties that
resulted in the Appellants setting the Respondent on fire, leading to her death. While
the Trial Court acquitted the Appellants due to the prosecution's failure to prove their
case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court and the Supreme Court found that the
evidence submitted, including the dying declaration and the nature of the burn
injuries, was sufficient to convict the Appellants under Section 302 read with Section
34 of
Issues involved
The issues involved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court are here as follows:

1 Whether the Hon’ble High Court misjudged in reversing the findings of the Trial
Court while exercising its power under Section 378 of CrPC?
2 Whether the Prosecution successfully established that the deceased died a
homicidal death at the hands of the Appellants?

ARGUMENTS BY PARTIES
In this case, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants argued that the High
Court's order was confusing and incorrect. They contended that the Trial Court's
ruling was well-reasoned and correctly acquitted the Appellants. The Counsel put
forward several instances of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support their argument,
asserting that the High Court should have scrutinized the evidence more diligently
before interfering with the order of the Trial Court. They argued that the High Court
failed to discharge its obligation under Section 378 of the CrPc by not evaluating the
entire evidence and findings of the Trial Court.

The Counsel further contended that the dying declaration could not be the sole
evidence relied upon for the conviction of the Appellants, citing the decision of
Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2011. They argued that the document was
disguised with suspicious circumstances and could not be termed as solitary evidence
in the absence of further solid evidence. They also relied on the case of Paparambaka
Rosamma & Ors v. the State of A.P, 1999, to assert that reliance should not be placed
on the dying declaration of the deceased without a medical certificate attesting to the
state of mind of the injured person.
Finally, the Counsel drew attention to the High Court's failure to acknowledge the
Prosecution's failure to establish any motive of the Appellants in the present case.
They argued that the conviction of the Appellants was not reasonable.

On the other hand, the learned State Counsel supported the High Court's conviction
and contended that it gave a well-reasoned judgment while applying specific reasons
supporting its decision. They put reliance on the case of Vijay Pal v. State
(Government of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2015, where it was held that even in cases where
there were 100% burn injuries, the dying declaration could still be relied upon to
prove the conviction.

Judgement
The Supreme Court of India observed that the High Court relied heavily on the dying
declaration of the deceased and the corroborative statements of a police officer and
doctor present during the recording. However, the Court found that there was
manipulation in the original declaration as some words were inserted with different
ink. To establish the admissibility and credibility of the statement, the Court cited
relevant judgments with similar facts.

The use of dying declarations as evidence in criminal trials is a topic that has been
widely debated among legal professionals and scholars. Over the years, several
landmark cases have helped to shape the jurisprudence surrounding the admissibility
and reliability of dying declarations in Indian law. This article will discuss three such
cases and analyze their impact on the legal landscape.

In the case of P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003), the Court was tasked
with determining whether the percentage of burns suffered by a victim could be
considered a reliable factor in evaluating the credibility of their dying declaration. The
Court held that there was no universal rule in this regard, and the reliability of the
declaration would depend on the nature of the burn, its impact, and the part of the
body affected. This ruling highlighted the importance of considering the unique
circumstances of each case when assessing the evidentiary value of a dying
declaration.

In Chacko v. State of Kerala (2003), the Court was presented with a case in which a
70-year-old woman who had suffered 80% burns gave a detailed dying declaration
several hours after the incident. The Court was skeptical of the genuineness and
evidentiary value of the declaration, given the severity of the victim's injuries and the
absence of any certification from the attending doctor regarding her mental and
physical state. The Court ultimately concluded that it was unlikely that the victim
could have provided an accurate account of what had happened to her, given the
extent of her injuries and the physical and emotional trauma she had endured.

The case of Sham Shankar Kankaria v. State of Maharashtra (2006) reiterated the
Court's earlier ruling that dying declarations should be treated as untested evidence,
subject to the same scrutiny as any other piece of evidence. The Court emphasized
that it was crucial to establish that the declaration was the unalloyed truth and that it
was safe to act upon it. The Court further stressed the importance of ensuring that the
victim was in a fit state of mind to give the statement and that any endorsement from
the attending doctor regarding the victim's mental state should be made prior to the
recording of the statement.

These cases illustrate the complexities involved in using dying declarations as

evidence in criminal trials. While such statements can be powerful tools for securing a
conviction, they must be evaluated carefully and in the context of the unique
circumstances of each case. Factors such as the severity of the victim's injuries, the
reliability of the attending doctor's certification, and the victim's mental state must all
be taken into account when assessing the evidentiary value of a dying declaration.

It is worth noting that the admissibility of dying declarations as evidence is not

without controversy. Some legal scholars argue that such statements are inherently
unreliable, given the physical and emotional trauma that victims may be experiencing
at the time they make the statement. Others argue that the use of dying declarations
unfairly disadvantages defendants, who are unable to cross-examine the victim or
challenge the accuracy of their statement. Despite these criticisms, however, dying
declarations remain an important tool for prosecutors and an established feature of the
Indian legal system.

In conclusion, the use of dying declarations as evidence in criminal trials is a complex

and controversial issue. While landmark cases such as P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of
Karnataka, Chacko v. State of Kerala, and Sham Shankar Kankaria v. State of
Maharashtra have helped to clarify the legal landscape, there remains much debate
and disagreement among legal professionals and scholars regarding the reliability and
admissibility of such statements. Ultimately, the use of dying declarations as evidence
will continue to be a topic of discussion and scrutiny in the Indian legal system for
years to come.

In a case involving the conviction of two individuals for the murder of an older,
illiterate woman, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India overturned the verdict of the
Hon’ble High Court and acquitted the Appellants of the charge. The decision was
based on the Court’s assessment of the evidence and its analysis of the Trial Court’s
findings, which it found to be reasonable and factual.

The Court noted that the Prosecution had failed to establish that the deceased died a
homicidal death at the hands of the Appellants. The dying declaration provided by the
deceased was found to be unreliable as it was taken in a question and answer format
by the police officer and not recorded according to the standard practice. Furthermore,
the statement appeared to have been influenced by the police officer in one direction.
The Court also questioned the accuracy of the statement, considering that the
deceased was an illiterate older person who had been administered highly sedative
painkillers before making the declaration. The doctor who treated the deceased had
initially claimed that the victim was in a fit state of mind after the dying declaration
was recorded, but the doctor’s claim was made after seeing the injuries on the victim's
body. The Court found this to be suspicious, given that it was standard practice for
this statement to be made before recording the dying declaration.
The Court also noted that there was a contradiction between the statements of the
police officer and the doctor. While the police officer claimed that the deceased’s
hands were not injured and hence she could put a thumb impression, the doctor
claimed that the deceased’s hands were injured. The police officer also admitted that
he did not take endorsement from the doctor regarding the deceased’s state of mind.
The doctor and police officer had tried to cover this fact, and the police officer took
an endorsement regarding the state of mind unusually.

The Court further noted that there was no evidence of the death being homicidal. The
deceased’s son and daughter-in-law had denied the incident and claimed that she
committed suicide. If it had been a case of homicidal death, the son and daughter-in-
law would have been more likely to report the incident to the police station. However,
it was the doctor who informed the police about the incident. This statement of facts
cast severe doubt on the veracity of the dying declaration and supported the
supposition that the deceased might have committed suicide.

The Court also questioned the police officer’s failure to call an Executive/Judicial
Magistrate to record the dying declaration. Although the law does not make it
mandatory to record a judicial officer’s dying declaration, it is still preferred to
strengthen the case. In this case, the police officer had enough time to call a
magistrate, but the same did not happen.

The Court was reluctant to accept the contents of the dying declaration and found that
the Hon’ble High Court had misjudged in reversing the findings of the Trial Court. It
held that the power of authority by the High Court under Section 378 of CrPC should
not be invoked routinely when the view of the Trial Court is the possible and correct
one. The Trial Court’s findings can also be correct, and hence high courts should
restrict their power under Section 378 of CrPC.

the Hon’ble Supreme Court found it difficult to hold the Appellants guilty based only
on the dying declaration, and therefore, the criminal appeals were allowed, and the
Appellants were acquitted of the charge. The Prosecution failed to establish that the
deceased died a homicidal death at the hands of the Appellants, and the Hon’ble High
Court misjudged in reversing the findings of the Trial Court. The Court’s decision
was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and its assessment of the Trial Court’s
findings, which it found to be reasonable and factual.

conclusion

The case of Jayamma & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka is an example of justice
delayed being justice denied. The Appellants were held not guilty after years of being
treated as criminals. Additionally, the cause of Jayamma's death was discovered after
the Appellants were found not guilty. Despite the criminal justice system's
presumption of innocence, society often treats accused individuals as guilty before
their case is concluded. The Appellants may have suffered economic, financial, and
personal damages due to the false accusations against them.

The Trial Court acquitted the Appellants, but the High Court held them guilty. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court acquitted the Appellants after providing a detailed and
reasonable explanation for their decision. However, questions remain about why the
High Court did not analyze the evidence more carefully and why the prosecution
witnesses supported the prosecution's case, despite inconsistencies in their statements.

The case highlights the importance of analyzing all relevant facts and circumstances
and the dangers of relying solely on dying declarations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's
decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence presented and the relevant
facts. Justice has been served, albeit after a delay, and the case is now closed.