Case Brief: State of Karnataka Vs. Shariff

 
Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Mathur
Date of Judgement: 27th January, 2003
Facts of the Case:  The respondents Shariff and his wife have been married for 10 years and have three children. The accused started ill-treating his wife after the birth of the third child and a Panchayat was held wherein he was asked to behave properly and look-after his wife. On July 24, 1986 the accused started quarreling with his wife and demanded money which she had earned sometime back by selling agarbattis.At the hospital, she made a dying declaration that she had been killed by her husband. Thereafter he poured kerosene on her and set her on fire by a matchstick. The Petitioners approached the Supreme Court by the way of Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court of Karnataka by which the appeal preferred by the accused respondent Shariff was allowed and the judgment and order dated February 6, 1987 of Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, by which he had been convicted under Section 302 IPC and had been sentenced to imprisonment for life was set aside.
Judgement:  The learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Karnataka argued the judgment and order of the High Court and has submitted that the prosecution had adduced reliable evidence to establish its case and the High Court has erred in discarding the testimony of the witnesses and also several dying declarations of the deceased which were reliable and trustworthy and the reasons given for acquitting the accused are wholly perverse and contrary to settled principles of law. The Supreme Court relying on certain cases held that “It is well settled that, as a matter of law, a dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration”. Also, it cannot be said that unless the dying declaration is in question-answer form, it could not be accepted. Having regard to the sanctity attached to a dying declaration as it comes from the mouth of a dying person though, unlike the principle of English law he need not be under apprehension of death. Hence the appeal succeeded in the Supreme Court and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Sessions Judge is restored. The accused-respondent shall surrender and undergo the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. The Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned shall take immediate steps to take the accused-respondent in custody.
Shradha Arora, Chanakya National Law University, Patna