PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA VS. STATE GOVT.

OF NCT OF
DELHI
5 August 2021 | Case Comments

This case comment is written by Shiksha Singh, a 4th year student from VIT School of law.
PURSHOTTAM CHOPRA VS. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI[1]
INTRODUCTION
The dying declaration is called "Laterm martem" meaning "words said before death”. It is explained
under clause 1 of section 32 of the Indian evidence act[2]. The dying declaration means written or oral
statement(s) of relevant facts made by a person who is dead. Generally, it relates to the cause of the
death of the declarant. It can be proved by the person who records it. However, it cannot be complete
unless the full names and addresses of the persons involved are given in it. 'Nemo moriturus
praesumitur mentire' is the basis for any dying declaration which means "a man will not meet his maker
with a lie in the mouth". In English law, a Dying declaration is relevant only in criminal cases where the
cause of death is in question whereas, in Indian law, such statements are admissible both in civil and
criminal proceedings. These are admissible even if the trial is not for a person to die. In the given case
the Apex Court has once again explained the basis and its comparison about dying declaration and self-
immolation of the victim by revisiting certain judicial precedents in detail.
FACTS
A man (Sher Singh) was ablaze with his entire body covered with fire and the people gathered at the site
tried to put out the flames by throwing water over the person. It was said that the was received by the
Police through a phone call from some unknown person who passed on the information about the
incident. Around 120 informal witnesses took note of the incident and tried to put off the fire. He was
soon shifted to Safdarjung hospital where the Doctor prepared the Medicolegal during which the injured
person identified himself as Sher Singh, gave his address and narrated the incident that had led to his
current condition while accusing two people of the same name, Purshottam and Suresh along with their
addresses to the doctor and the police officer. They were accused of causing the death of Sher Singh by
setting him on fire and causing burn injuries involving the whole of the body surface area-100% deep
burns.
ISSUES
1) A major res Integra in this case that remained for a long time was Can a person who has suffered 92%
burn injuries be in a condition to give a dying declaration?
2) The question of admissibility of Sher Singh’s statements as he was believed to not be in a fit and
conscious state of mind as affirmed by eyewitnesses, to make reliable statements.
3) The absence of the magistrate, while the dying declaration was recorded, created a question of
admissibility of statements of the deceased.
REASONING OF THE COURT
The Trial Court found that there was no direct evidence about the commission of the offence and that
the entire prosecution case was hinging upon the two dying declarations said to have been made by the
deceased Sher Singh. The court accepted the genuineness of the evidence led in by the doctor, that the
victim Sher Singh himself had informed her the reason and cause behind his injuries and she had found
the victim to be conscious and oriented though his general condition was critical. The veracity of the
case prepared by her could not be doubted and the court also rejected the other contentions urged on
behalf of the accused-appellant and held that even if the victim had suffered 100% burn injuries, the
dying declaration made by him was not to be rejected as there was nothing to show that the mental
condition of injured Sher Singh was such that he was unable to speak.
The High Court reappreciated the evidence and concurred with the decision of the Trial Court while
holding that the statement made by the deceased Sher Singh to the doctor as recorded, the statement
made by him to police, which was considered to be the dying declarations, clearly established the crime
alleged against the appellants.
The courts declared that although the presence of a Magistrate is not necessary for the recording of a
dying declaration but to ensure authenticity and credibility, it is expected that a Magistrate is requested
to record such dying declaration and/or attestation be obtained from other persons present at the time
of recording the dying declaration, Where a dying declaration is suspicious or is suffering from any
infirmity such as want of fit state of mind of the declarant or like nature, it should not be acted upon
without corroborative evidence. When a statement is offered as a dying declaration which satisfies all
the requirements of judicial scrutiny it cannot be discarded merely because it has not been recorded by
a Magistrate or that the police officer did not obtain attestation by any person present at the time of the
making of the statement.
Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that the statement, written or verbal, by a
person who is dead shall be treated as relevant fact in the investigation when the statement is made by
a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted
in his death.
Another contention urged on behalf of the appellants about viewing the present case under Section 304
Part II for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder has only been noted to be
outrightly rejected. The act of pouring kerosene over Sher Singh and then putting him on fire by lighting
a match has all the ingredients of doing an act to cause the death of a person in a gruesome manner as
stated in his dying declaration. The conviction of the appellants for the offence of murder appears
justified.
It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that the victim had made the statement about self-
immolation for the reason of himself having been dropped from tempo. It was contended that such a
statement by the victim was ought to be taken as his first dying declaration. But having closely
scrutinized the testimony of the witness has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court and by the High
Court.
The Court found that the statement placed as dying declaration was voluntary, coherent and consistent,
hence, there is no legal impediment in recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration.
JUDGEMENT
All the courts proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, convicted the accused-
appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code[3] and sentenced them to life
imprisonment. Accordingly, and given the above, these appeals failed and were, therefore, dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The probative value of a dying declaration is determined by the facts and circumstances of each case,
according to the court. The court found the above dying declaration admissible and reliable since the
victim was conscious, oriented, and made remarks in a fit state of mind, and it met all judicial scrutiny
standards, proving appellants' culpability in the crime therefore, it cannot be discarded merely because
it has not been recorded by a Magistrate or that the police officer did not obtain attestation by any
person present at the time of the making of the statement. And in Koli Chunilal Savji v. the State of
Gujarat[4], the Supreme Court held that the ultimate test is whether the dying declaration was made
voluntarily and truthfully. It was also decided that before recording the declaration, the officer in charge
must determine whether the declarant was in a competent state to make the statement. Similarly, in the
case of Laxman v. State of Maharashtra[5], the court held that the person who records a dying
declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the
testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even without examination
by the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the same to be
voluntary and truthful which is an essential aspect to be considered. A certification by the doctor is
essentially a rule of caution and therefore the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be
established otherwise, and in our case at hand, the doctor who recorded the statements is believed to
be a responsible professional who has no reasons to fabricate the statements given by Sher Singh.
In Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. the State of Gujarat[6], the court had declared that unless there exists
some inherent and apparent defect, the trial court should not substitute its opinion for that of the
doctor and therefore, the dying declaration was found to be reliable. The legal theory governing the
acceptability of such statements given by a person who is close to death is based on the notion that at
the end of life, all motives for lying are abolished or suppressed, accelerating the loss of hope in life
sonly eliminates the possibility of deception or wrong intent, this does not rule out the possibility that
the severity of the damage will lead to the dying declaration's trustworthiness. In a case of death, the
motive remains essentially known to the deceased and the offender and a prosecution case cannot fail
only for want of proof of motive.
References:
[1] Purshottam Chopra vs. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal Nos. 194-195 of 2012
[2] Legislative.gov.in (2021), https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1872-01.pdf
[3] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/4219/1/THE-INDIAN-PENAL-CODE-1860.pdf
[4]Koli Chunilal Savji v. the State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562: 2000 SCC (Cri) 432
[5] Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710
[6]Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. the State of Gujarat (1992) 4 SCC 69, (1992).