STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. RAM SAGAR YADAV & OTHERS
- Bench: Y. V. Chandrachud, C.J. and Amarendra Nath Sen, J.
- Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh
- Respondent: Ram Sagar Yadav and Others
Issue
Whether dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration?
Facts
• Faheeman lodged a complaint against Brijlal for cattle trespass in Hussainganj Police Station, District Fatehpur. Respondent No. 2 (R2) Shobha Nath (a constable of Hussainganj Police Station) obtained a bribe of Rs. 100 from Brijlal on assurance that no steps would be taken against him in pursuance of the complaint. A furthur sum of Rs. 200 was demanded by R2 which the latter refused to pay.
• Instead, on 7 August 1969, he sent a complaint to Superintendent of Police (SP), Fatehpur against R2 for demanding bribe. SP forwarded that complaint to Station House Officer (SHO) of Hussainganj Police Station, Ram Sagar Yadav (Respondent No. 1 or R1) for inquiry and report.
• Being incensed by the ‘audacity’ of Brijlal in complaining against a policeman under his charge, R1 sent two constables (R3 and R4) to bring Brijlal to Police Station to teach him a ‘lesson’.
• On 29 August 1969, R3 and R4 went to village Haibatpur, arrested and brought Brijlal to Police Station at 10am. Brijlal died the same day at about 6pm due to injuries caused to him in Police Station.
• The Sessions Judge, Fatehpur passed an order of conviction and sentence against the four respondents. This order was set aside by the Allahabad High Court, against which an Appeal was filed in the Supreme Court.
Appellant's Contentions
• The respondents were incensed at the complaint made by Brijlal against R2 and that was the sole reason of his arrest.
• Jail Doctor of Fatehpur District Jail had stated that Brijlal neither showed symptoms of fever nor pneumonia and that the 19 injuries were the cause of his death.
Respondent's Contentions:
• Brijlal was involved in a dacoity case and was arrested for that reason.
• Brijlal died due to fever or pneumonic condition of his lungs.
Judgment
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court affirming that of the Sessions Court convicting and sentencing the respondents.
Relevant Paragraphs
It is well-settled that, as a matter of law, a dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. There is not even a rule of prudence which has hardened into a rule of law that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. The primary effort of the court has to be to find out whether the dying declaration is true. If it is, no question of corroboration arises. It is only if the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration are not clear or convincing that the court may, for its assurance, look for corroboration to the dying declaration. The case before us is a typical illustration of that class of cases in which, the court should not hesitate to act on the basis of an uncorroborated dying declaration. Brijlal had no reason for involving the policeman falsely for having assaulted him. There was no possibility of anyone tutoring him, for the simple reason that he was in the exclusive custody of the policemen of Hussainganj Police Station. It is the respondents who were in a position to exert influence over him. No one else had access to him, which not only excludes the possibility of him being tutored, but which also excludes the possibility that he was assaulted by anyone else. Indeed, the circumstances of the case leave no doubt that the dying declaration made by Brijlal to Shri Nigam is true in every respect. We consider it safe to accept the statement made by Brijlal to Shri Nigam that he was beaten by the “Darogah and the constables” of the Hussainganj Police Station.
- Para 13 (State of UP vs. Ram Sagar Yadav & Ors.)
