Laxman v. State of Maharashtra

Facts

The appellant's conviction rested on a dying declaration recorded by a judicial magistrate, which the Sessions Judge and the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court found truthful and voluntary. The magistrate deposed that he contacted the patient through the medical officer on duty, put questions to find out whether she could make a statement, and recorded it on being satisfied; the doctor had certified only that the patient was conscious. Before a three Judge bench, the appellant relied on Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which required certification of a fit state of mind, and the State relied on Koli Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat. As the two decisions were somewhat contradictory, the bench, by order dated 27 July 2002, referred the question to the Constitution Bench, which confined itself to resolving the conflict without examining the evidence.

Questions before the Court

1. Can a dying declaration recorded by a magistrate be accepted when the doctor has certified only that the declarant was conscious, and not that the declarant was in a fit state of mind?
2. Which of the conflicting three Judge bench decisions, Paparambaka Rosamma or Koli Chunilal Savji, states the law correctly?

What the Court held

• A dying declaration may be oral or written, by words, signs or any adequate method, if the indication is positive and definite. No oath is needed, the presence of a magistrate is not absolutely necessary, and there is no statutory form for its recording; its weight depends on the facts of each case.
• What is essentially required is that the person recording the declaration is satisfied that the declarant was in a fit state of mind. Where the magistrate's testimony proves this, the declaration can be acted upon even without examination by a doctor, provided the court holds it voluntary and truthful.
• Certification by a doctor is essentially a rule of caution. Where eyewitnesses say the declarant was fit and conscious, medical opinion will not prevail, and the absence of a doctor's certificate of fitness does not by itself make the declaration unacceptable.
• The observation in Paparambaka Rosamma that it is very risky to accept the magistrate's satisfaction without medical certification of fitness was too broadly stated and hyper-technical. That decision was held not correctly decided, and the law in Koli Chunilal Savji was affirmed.
• The Constitution Bench answered only the referred question and sent the appeal back to the bench presided over by Shah, J. for decision on the evidence.

Why it matters

A Constitution Bench resolved a conflict between two three Judge benches on proof of a dying declarant's mental fitness. It held that a doctor's certificate of fitness is a rule of caution, not a legal requirement, and that the decisive question is whether the person recording the declaration was satisfied of the declarant's fitness and whether the declaration is voluntary and truthful. It held Paparambaka Rosamma not correctly decided and affirmed Koli Chunilal Savji.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

Provisions interpreted

• Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (dying declaration)Now: BSA 26 (NCRB correspondence table)

Related judgments

• Overrules Paparambaka Rosamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1999)“the judgment of this court in Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1999] 7 SCC 695 must be held to be not correctly decided” (page 3)

Case and bench

Parties

Laxman v. State of Maharashtra

Case

Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2001

Decided

27 August 2002

Bench

G.B. Pattanaik, M.B. Shah, Doraiswamy Raju, S.N. Variava, D.M. Dharmadhikari

Opinions

Unanimous. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Pattanaik, J.

Questions on this case

1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.