Supreme Court Justice Doriswami Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat said that an FIR was prepared on the statement of the hospitalized victim and on the death of the victim, considered as a moribund declaration. The court found that the High Court and the trial court were justified in convicting the culprits on the basis of the declaration of death.

The criminal-appellant, Dharni P.V. On hearing the shout, the landlord rushed to the spot and the woman was rushed to the hospital, the police prepared an FIR with the woman’s statement and the victim later died.

The 22nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge of Bangalore convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000 / -, which is fine, the accused – The appellant will have to serve a sentence of imprisonment of up to one month.

The Karnataka High Court fully affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Therefore, an appeal was filed by the accused-appellant before the Supreme Court and the court:

The principle on which the declaration of dying is accepted in evidence is reflected in the legal adage “Nemo moriturus prosumitur Menteri 200200 This means that a man will not meet his creator with a lie in his mouth.”

“This is a case where the dying declaration is the basis for the conviction of the accused. The situation in which a person dies is so serene and serious and when he is dying that the critical condition in which he is placed is the reason for accepting the veracity of his statement in law. ”

“It is for this reason that cross-examination and oath requirements are sent along. In addition, the declaration of dying should be excluded because it would lead to a miscarriage of justice as the victim in a serious crime is usually the only eyewitness, the exclusion of the statement would leave the court without a scrap of evidence. ”

Click to complete judgment

b’P.V._Radhakrishna_vs_State_Of_Karnataka_on_25_July,_2003′ (1)

Please follow and like us: