SANDEEP KUMAR TRIPATHY @ SANDEEP TRIPATHY VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, 2024 (JHA) 101
FACTS: The present Criminal Appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000. In default of fine payment, the appellant faces an additional six months of imprisonment. The case originated from the statement (fardbeyan) of the informant, Niranjan Kumar Pandey @ Pappu Pandey, residing in Turiabera, PS-MGM, District East Singhbhum. The statement, recorded on June 1, 2012, alleged that on May 31, 2012, upon returning from Tata after the conclusion of a nationwide strike, the informant was informed by his wife, Sanju Pandey, that she was being harassed at their residence by a boy named Sandeep Kumar Tripathy. The informant rushed back home and found Sandeep assaulting his wife with a "Bhujali" (a type of weapon). The villagers apprehended Sandeep, but the informant's wife succumbed to her injuries despite medical treatment.
ISSUE: Whether a dying declaration can be deemed admissible as evidence if the declarant was not in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement?
OBSERVATION: The Jharkhand High Court clarified that there is no prescribed format for recording a dying declaration, which may be oral or written. However, for such a declaration to be admissible in court, it must establish that the declarant was in a "fit state of mind" at the time of making the statement. The court observed that despite her injuries, the deceased managed to apprehend the accused and raise an alarm, indicating her physical and mental capacity to make a coherent declaration. The court noted that although no doctor certified her mental state during the declaration, witness Rudan Singh attested to her fitness. The court admitted Rudan Singh's testimony both as an eyewitness to part of the incident and as a witness to the dying declaration made by the deceased while injured.
Regarding the absence of the murder weapon during the trial, the court held that this did not invalidate the case, as the prosecution adequately proved the seizure of the blood-stained "Bhujali" through witness testimony and the seizure memo.
