SUNIL KUMAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

SUNIL KUMAR versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

The Supreme Court held that the telephonic entry in the station diary disclosing a cognizable offence constituted the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate of a declarant who survived must be treated as a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and that the eyewitness evidence of P.W.1, corroborated by P.W.2, P.W.3 and medical and forensic evidence, was reliable; the trial court's acquittal was perverse and the convictions for rioting, murder and attempt to murder were upheld.

Parties
Appellant: Sunil Kumar; Appellant: Hargovind; Appellant: Rafu @ Rafiq; Appellant: Nazim; Appellant: Suresh; Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh; Deceased/victim: Dayashankar; Victim/eye Witness (p.w.1): Ramesh Chandra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 January 1997
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1985 Under Section 379 Cr.p.c.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court convicting the appellants upheld.
Legal Topics
Murder (sections 302/149 Ipc), Attempt to Murder (section 307/149 Ipc), Rioting (section 147 Ipc), Dying Declaration, First Information Report (fir), Treatment of Telephonic Information as FIR, Treatment of Dying Declaration as Statement Under Section 164 Cr.p.c., Statements Recorded Under Section 161 Cr.p.c., Presumption Under Section 114 Evidence Act, Corroboration of Ocular and Medical Evidence
Criminal Law Indian Penal Code 1860 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 Evidence Act 1872 Murder (sections 302/149 Ipc) Attempt to Murder (section 307/149 Ipc) Rioting (section 147 Ipc) Dying Declaration +6 more

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunil Kumar

Appellant

Hargovind

Appellant

Rafu @ Rafiq

Appellant

Nazim

Appellant

Suresh

Appellant

State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondent

Dayashankar

Deceased/victim

Ramesh Chandra

Victim/eye Witness (p.w.1)

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court; Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1985 Under Section 379 Cr.p.c.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether telephonic information recorded in the station diary disclosing a cognizable offence constitutes an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether a statement recorded by a Magistrate as a dying declaration of a declarant who subsequently survives is to be treated as a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and can be used for corroboration or contradiction
  3. 3 Whether non-disclosure of assailants' names to police over telephone by the informant affects the victim's eyewitness testimony and corroboration

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the telephonic entry in the station diary disclosing a cognizable offence constituted the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate of a declarant who survived must be treated as a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and that the eyewitness evidence of P.W.1, corroborated by P.W.2, P.W.3 and medical and forensic evidence, was reliable; the trial court's acquittal was perverse and the convictions for rioting, murder and attempt to murder were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court convicting the appellants upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • The appellants, who were on bail, shall surrender to their bail bonds to serve out the sentence imposed by the High Court.