NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2015
KAMAL KHUDAL      …APPELLANT
  Versus
STATE OF ASSAM       …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.  :
1. This   appeal,   by   special   leave,   is   at   the   instance   of   a   convict
accused of the offence of murder and is directed against the judgment
and order passed by the Gauhati High Court dismissing the Criminal
Appeal No. 86 of 2010 by which it affirmed the judgment and order of
conviction   passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge   (FTC),   Sivasagar
in the Sessions Case No. 57 of 2008 dated 10.06.2010.
2. It appears from the materials on record that in all three accused
persons   were   put   on   trial   in   the   Court   of   the   Additional   Sessions
Judge   (FTC),   Sivasagar,   including   the   appellant   herein.   All   the   three
accused were charged with the offence punishable under Section 302
read  with  Section  34 of the  Indian  Penal  Code  (for  short,  “IPC”).   The
1

trial   court,   vide   its   judgment   dated   10.06.2010,   held   the   appellant
herein along with one Munna Bhoi (A­1) guilty of the offence of murder
punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/­ each and in default of payment
of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. The
third   co­accused   Bipon   Bhoi   was   given   the   benefit   of   doubt   and   he
came to be acquitted.  
3. The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:
4. On   15.07.2007   at   about   7   o’clock   in   the   morning   the   appellant
herein along  with the co­accused (Munna Bhoi) came  to the house of
the   deceased,   namely,   Uttam   Dutta.   The   accused   persons   took   the
deceased along with them for the purpose of paddy plantation.   When
the deceased left with the accused persons in the morning, his brother
Utpal Dutta was present at the house.  The deceased did not return to
his   house   till   late   evening.     The   family   members   of   the   deceased   got
worried and started searching for him. The dead body of the deceased
was found lying in a drain of Duribam Tea Estate with various injuries
on the body, including burn injuries. No sooner  the  dead body of  the
deceased   was   recovered,   then   his   brother   Utpal   Dutta   went   to   the
police   station   and   registered   the   First   Information   Report   (FIR).   The
FIR was registered as Kakatibari P.S. Case No. 24/2007 for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
2

5. Upon   registration   of   the   FIR,   the   investigation   started.   The
investigation revealed that the co­accused Munna Bhoi was running a
liquor   (local)   factory   situated   adjacent   to   his   paddy   field.     The
deceased   after   working   for   sometime   in   the   paddy   field   accompanied
the accused persons to the liquor factory. Something went wrong while
the accused persons and the deceased were in the liquor factory. The
locals   working   in   the   vicinity   of   the   liquor   factory   heard   some
commotion coming  from  the liquor factory. After sometime, the locals
saw the deceased coming out of the factory with burn injuries on his
body.   One   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   Hanu   Khetrapal   (PW­2),   who
was   present   in   the   nearby   agricultural   field,   enquired   with   the
deceased   as   to   what   had   happened.     At   that   point   of   time,   the
deceased is said to have informed the PW­2 that the accused persons
had   poured   hot   lali   (raw   material   used   for   preparing   local   liquor)   on
his   body   as   a   result   of   which   he   had   suffered   burn   injuries.     Saying
so, the deceased left and thereafter his dead body was recovered from
the drain of Duribam Tea Estate.
6. During   the   course   of   investigation,   the   investigating   agency
arrested   three   persons,   namely,   Munna   Bhoi,   Kamal   Khudal
(appellant herein) and Bipon Bhoi. On completion of the investigation,
charge sheet was filed against all the three accused for the offence of
murder. As the offence was exclusively  triable by the Sessions  Court,
3

the   Magistrate   in   whose   court   the   charge   sheet   was   filed   committed
the   case  to  the   court  of   the  Sessions   Judge,  Sivasagar   under   Section
209   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   (for   short,   “CrPC”).   The
trial   court   proceeded   to   frame   charge   against   all   the   three   accused
persons   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   read   with
Section 34 of the IPC vide order dated 11.09.2008.
7. It   appears   from   the   materials   on   record   that   the   prosecution   in
all   examined   8   witnesses.   At   the   end   of   the   trial,   the   trial   court   held
the   appellant   herein,   along   with   Munna  Bhoi,   guilty   of   the   offence   of
murder   of   the   deceased   and   sentenced   them   to   undergo   life
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/­ each. As noted above, the third
accused, namely, Bipon Bhoi came to be acquitted.
8. The   appellant   herein   being   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and
order   of   conviction   passed   by   the   trial   court   preferred   the   Criminal
Appeal   No.   86   of   2010   in   the   Gauhati   High   Court.     The   co­accused
Munna   Bhoi   also   preferred   an   appeal   which   was   registered   as   the
Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 2010. Both the appeals were heard together
and by a common judgment dated 20.12.2013 both were ordered to be
dismissed.  
9.  In   such   circumstances   referred   to   above,   the   appellant   is   here
before   this   Court   with   the   present   appeal.   We   are   informed   that   the
co­accused   Munna   Bhoi   thought   fit   not   to   question   the   judgment   of
4

the High Court.
SUBMISSIONS  :­
10. Mr.   Vivek   Sharma,   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
appellant,   vehemently   submitted   that   the   trial   court   committed   a
serious  error  in  holding  the appellant accused  guilty  of  the offence of
murder.     He   would   submit   that   the   High   Court   also   committed   a
serious   error   in   upholding   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction
passed   by   the   trial   court.   According   to   the   learned   counsel,   the   case
on  hand  is  one  of  “not reliable  legal  evidence”.  He  would  submit that
the   entire   conviction   of   the   appellant   is   based   on   a   oral   dying
declaration alleged to have been made by the deceased before the PW­
2, namely, Hanu Khetrapal. This so called oral dying declaration of the
deceased ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court as well
as by the High Court as the same does not inspire any confidence. The
learned   counsel   would   submit   that   as   a   rule   of   prudence   the   courts
below   should   have   insisted   for   corroboration   before   relying   upon   an
oral dying declaration which otherwise is a weak piece of evidence. He
would submit that had the dying declaration been recorded in writing
by an Executive Magistrate  some sanctity could have been attached to
the same. However, it would be too dangerous to place any reliance on
an uncorroborated oral dying declaration made before a local person.
11. The learned counsel would further submit that the case at hand
5

is   one   of   circumstantial   evidence.   Conviction   can   be   based   on
circumstantial   evidence   provided   there   are   incriminating
circumstances   pointing   only   towards   the   guilt   of   the   accused.     He
would   further   submit   that   although   the   first   informant,   PW­1   Utpal
Dutta (brother of the deceased) has deposed that early in the morning
the   accused   persons   had   come   at   his   house   and   had   asked   the
deceased to join them for the paddy plantation, yet this circumstance,
by   itself,   cannot   be   termed   as   an   incriminating   circumstance.   It
cannot be said to be a circumstance of last seen together.
12. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel for
the   appellant   prays   that   there   being   merit   his   appeal,   the   same   may
be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court as  well   as  by  the  trial  court  be  quashed  and  set  aside  and  the
accused appellant be acquitted of the charge of murder. 
13. The   State   of   Assam,   although   served   with   the   notice   issued   by
this Court, yet thought fit not to oppose the present appeal.
ANALYSIS  :
14. Having   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
and   having   gone   through   materials   on   record,   the   only   question   that
falls   for   our   consideration   is   whether   the   High   Court   committed   any
error   in   dismissing   the   criminal   appeal   filed   by   the   appellant   herein
against   the   judgment   and   order   of   conviction   passed   by   the   trial
6

court ?
15. We   must   first   look   into   the   medical   evidence   on   record.   The
prosecution has examined Dr. Nirmal Ch. Chutia (PW­9) as one of its
witnesses to prove the post mortem report of the deceased. Dr. Chutia
at   the   relevant   point   of   time   was   serving   as   the   Senior   Medical   &
Health  Officer  at  the   Civil  Hospital,  Sivasagar.  In   his   examination­in­
chief,   he   has   deposed   that   the   dead   body   of   one   Uttam   Dutta
(deceased) aged 36 years was brought at the hospital for the purpose
of post mortem.  In the post mortem report, the following injuries were
noted :­
“1)  External appearance   :
                A   male   dead   body,   aged   approximately   36   years,
rigormortis present.
2)  Wounds  :­
  There are multiple dark achimost areas—seen on left
side   of   the   chest  wall,   Chest  and   forehead.     Approximately
75%   of   body   surface   area   are   burnt.   Superficial   skin   is
burnt off.  Wound are antemortem in nature.
3) Cranium and Spinal Canal   :
All organ are healthy.
4)  Thorax   :
Multiple   factures   on   the   left   side   and   haemothorax
with laceration of left lungs. 
5) Abdoman   :
Organs are healthy.
7

6) Muscles, bones and joints­­­healthy.”
16. Dr.   Chutia   (PW­9)   further   deposed   that   there   were   75%   burn
injuries   on   the   body   of   the   victim.     The   superficial   skin   was   found
burnt.     Multiple   dark   ecchymosis   were   to   be   seen   on   the   left   side   of
the   chest   and   forehead.   Ecchymosis   means   discolouring   of   skin
resulting   from   blood   underneath.   He   had   deposed   that   the   injuries
were   ante   mortem   in   nature.   He   certified   the   cause   of   death   due   to
shock   and   haemorrhage   resulting   from   chest   &   skull   injuries   and
skull   injuries.   He   had   also   deposed   that   multiple   injuries   on   the
thorax of the victim were also noticed.
17. Hanu Khetrapal (PW­2) in his examination­in­chief had deposed
that   on   the   date   of   incident   at   about   10   in   the   morning   he   was
ploughing his field. He saw that the deceased was also ploughing the
agricultural field of Munna Bhoi along with the other accused persons.
He   had   deposed   that   there   was   a   liquor   (local)   factory   owned   by
Munna   Bhoi   situated   adjacent   to   his   agricultural   field.   PW­2   further
deposed that he saw all the accused persons along with the deceased
going towards the liquor factory. After some time, he heard some noise
coming from  the factory.  The deceased came  to the  field of PW­2 and
informed   him   that   the   accused   persons   had   poured   hot   lali   (raw
material used for preparing local liquor) on his body as a result he had
suffered burn injuries. According to the PW­2, the deceased thereafter
8

left   the   place.   The   defence   has   not   been   able   to   elicit   anything
substantial   in   the   cross   examination   of   PW­2   rendering   his   evidence
doubtful in any manner.
18. The trial court placed reliance on the following circumstances, as
noted in para 19 of its judgment, to hold the accused appellant guilty
of the offence of murder:
“(i)   Accused   Munna   and   Kamal   went   to   the   house   of   the
victim at about 7 a.m. on 15.7.2007 and brought the victim
along with him.
(ii) P.W. 2 saw the victim along with all the accused persons
in   the   paddy   field   of   the   accused   Munna   Bhui   till   10   a.m.
on   the   date   of   occurrence.   According   to   P.W.   2   all   the
accused   persons   and   the   victim   left   the   field   and   went   to
the   liquour   factory   of   the   Munna   Bhui.     He   heard   some
noise   there.   After   a   while,   the   victim   returned   back   and
P.W.   2   saw   some   injury   on   his   body.   The   victim   was   in
abnormal state at that time.
(iii)     The   dead   body   was   recovered   in   a   drain   of   Duribam
Tea   Estate.   P.Ws.   have   clearly   stated   that   the   skin   of   the
victim   was   removed   from   the   body   and   according   to   them,
the   skin   was   removed   due   to   burnt   injuries   caused   by   bot
water.
(iv)  The doctor has opined that about 75% of the body was
burnt   and   the   superficial   skin   was   burnt   off   due   to
application of hot water.
(v)   Ext,   1   was   prepared   on   15.7.2007   by   the   I.O.   had
detected burnt injuries on the body of the victim caused by
hot water.
(vi)   Accused   Munna   Bhui   was   arrested   on   18.7.2007,
accused   Bipon   was   arrested   on   19.7.2007   and   Kamal   was
arrested   on   23.7.2007.   All   the   accused   were   absconding
themselves in order to avoid arrest.”
9

19. The   High   Court,   upon   re­appreciation   of   the   entire   evidence,
concurred with the reasons assigned by the trial court in its judgment
and order holding the appellant herein guilty of the offence of murder.
The   High   Court   accepted   the   oral   dying   declaration   to   be   true   and
trustworthy said to have been made by the deceased to the PW­2.
20. We are of the view, having regard to the evidence on record, that
High Court was justified in accepting the oral dying declaration made
by   the   deceased   before   the   PW­2   as   one   reliable   and   inspiring
confidence.  
21. The   law   regarding   the   nature,   scope   and   value   as   a   piece   of
evidence   of   oral   and   written   dying   declarations   is   now   fairly   well
settled by various judicial decisions of this Court. A dying declaration,
oral   or   written,   before   it   could   be   relied   upon,   must   pass   a   test   of
reliability as it is a statement made in the absence of the accused and
there is no opportunity to the accused even to put it through the fire of
cross   examination   to   test   is   genuinity   or   veracity.   The   court   has,
therefore,   to   subject   it   to   close   scrutiny.     But   once   the   court   is
satisfied that it is a truthful version as to the circumstances in which
the death resulted and the persons causing injuries, the law does not
expect that there should be corroboration before it can be relied upon.
However, if there are infirmities and the court does not find it safe to
base any conclusion on it without some further evidence to support it,
10

the question of corroboration arises. 
22. We may refer to one of the decisions of this Court in the case of
Heikrujam   Chaoba   Singh   v.   State   of   Manipur ,   (1999)   8   SCC   458,
wherein in para 3 this Court observed as under:
“3.   An   oral   dying   declaration   no   doubt   can   form   the
basis   of   conviction,   though   the   Courts   seek   for
corroboration   as   a   rule   of   prudence.   But   before   the
said   declaration   can   be   acted   upon,   the   Court   must
be   satisfied   about   the   truthfulness   of   the   same   and
that   the   said   declaration   was   made   by   the   deceased
while he was in a fit condition to make the statement.
The dying declaration has to be taken as a whole and
the   witness   who   deposes   about   such   oral   declaration
to him must pass the scrutiny of reliability. …” 
23. “Truth sits upon the lips of a dying man.”    
            ­  Matthew Arnold
24. The   whole   idea   of   accepting   a   statement   in   the   name   of   dying
declaration   comes   from   a   maxim   “Nemo   moriturus   praesumitur
mentire”   which means that a man will not meet his maker with a lie in
his mouth. It is believed that when a man is at the point of death and
when   every   expectation   of   this   world   is   gone,   it   hushes   away   every
motive of lie.  
25.  In   our   view,   the   oral   evidence   of   the   PW­2,   namely,   Hanu
Khetrapal is quite natural. On the day of occurrence, he was working
in   his   agricultural   field.   His   presence   in   his   field   could   be   said   to   be
natural.   There   is   no   good   reason   for   Hanu   Khetrapal   (PW­2)   to   come
11

before the trial court and depose falsely against the accused persons.
It   is   not   even   the   case   of   the   accused   appellant   herein   that   Hanu
Khetrapal   (PW­2)   had   some   axe   to   grind   against   him,   including   the
other co­accused and, therefore, fabricated the entire story  of an oral
dying declaration. Besides the same, the oral dying declaration of the
deceased   made   before   Hanu   Khetrapal   (PW­2)   stands   corroborated
with   the   medical   evidence   on   record.   The   medical   evidence   on   record
would   suggest   that   there   were   75%   burn   injuries   on   the   chest  of  the
deceased.   The   burn   injuries   were   suffered   by   the   deceased   as   the
accused   persons   are   said   to   have   poured   hot   lali   (raw   material   used
for preparing liquor). 
26. We also take notice of the fact that the appellant herein came to
be   arrested   on   23 rd
  of   July,   2007,   that   is,   almost   after   about   8   days
from the date of incident.  He was absconding. He was not available at
his   house.     The   appellant   accused   in   his   further   statement   recorded
under   Section   313   of   the   CrPC   has   not   explained   where   he   was
between 15.07.2007 and 23.07.2007, that is, till the date of his arrest.
This   is   one   another   incriminating   circumstance   and,   if   taken   into
consideration   with   the   other   circumstances   on   record,   would   bear
some relevance while deciding the guilt of the accused. 
27. It   appears   from   the   materials   on   record,   more   particularly   from
the nature  of the oral evidence, that something went wrong while the
12

deceased   and   the   accused   persons   were   inside   the   liquor   factory.   It
appears to be a case of sudden fight.   It could be on account of some
verbal   altercation   between   the   deceased   and   the   accused   persons
while they were inside the liquor factory.
28. In the overall  view of the matter, we are convinced that there is
no good reason to interfere in the present appeal. We do not find any
fundamental or basic infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High
Court   going   to   the   root   of   the   matter   calling   for   any   interference   by
this Court.
29. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
…………………………………….J.
(SURYA KANT)
…………………………………….J.
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 14, 2022
13