STATE OF U.P. versus VEER SINGH AND ORS.

STATE OF U.P. versus VEER SINGH AND ORS.

The High Court erred in acquitting the accused solely on the basis that their names did not appear in the dying declaration. When the maker of a dying declaration survives, it is not a dying declaration under Section 32 Evidence Act, and must be treated as a statement under Section 164 CrPC for purposes of corroboration and contradiction. As the High Court failed to consider other evidence and misread the evidence, its judgment is indefensible and must be set aside for fresh determination.

Parties
Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondents: Veer Singh and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Acquittal Judgment of Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; case remitted for re-hearing.
Legal Topics
Dying Declaration, Value of Survivor's Statement, Section 164 Cr PC, Section 157 Evidence Act, Section 155 Evidence Act, Misreading of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Law Dying Declaration Value of Survivor's Statement Section 164 Cr PC Section 157 Evidence Act Section 155 Evidence Act Misreading of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Uttar Pradesh

Appellant

Veer Singh and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Acquittal Judgment of Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a statement treated as dying declaration can be used if the maker survives
  2. 2 Proper evidentiary value of such statement
  3. 3 Whether acquittal based solely on absence of names in dying declaration is legally sustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in acquitting the accused solely on the basis that their names did not appear in the dying declaration. When the maker of a dying declaration survives, it is not a dying declaration under Section 32 Evidence Act, and must be treated as a statement under Section 164 CrPC for purposes of corroboration and contradiction. As the High Court failed to consider other evidence and misread the evidence, its judgment is indefensible and must be set aside for fresh determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; case remitted for re-hearing.

Orders

  • Matter remitted to the High Court for decision afresh in accordance with law.
  • Any observations made, except for those relating to the erroneous conclusion regarding the purported dying declaration, shall not be taken as expression of opinion on merits.