KATASANI RAMA LAKSHMAMMA Vs. KATASANI JAGADESWARA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention raised in this petition is whether the statement of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate and marked as Exhibit P-21 and another statement of the deceased recorded by the police and marked as Exhibit P-29, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1969 on the file of Sessions Court, Cuddapah are admissible in evidence under section 32 of the Evidence Act.

(2.) On the night of 6th June, 1968., while one Katasani Chinna Eswara Reddi (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was sleeping in his house on a cot along with his daughter P.W. 2, acid was thrown on both of them and they sustained burns. They were removed to the hospital at Proddatur, where they were first treated by P.W. 5 the lady doctor. On the same day, P.W. 5 had sent an intimation Ezhibit P-6 to the Police. P.W. 16 the head constable of the town police station came to the hospital and recorded Exhibit P-29 a statement from the deceased The doctor P.W. 5 had also sent another intimation to the Magistrate and P.W. 12 the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Proddatur who received intimation reached the hospital and there recorded Exhibit P-21 another statement of the deceased. On the statement recorded by P.W. 16 a case was registered at the police station under sections 307 and 324, Indian Penal Code. P.W. 18 the Sub-Inspector of police also visited the scene of offence but no further action appears to have been taken by the police then. The deceased was later transferred to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Cuddapah and from there he was discharged at his own request on 24th July, 1968. Thereafter he was taken to a Mission Hospital at Simhadripuram. He took treatment there for two days and left the Hospital for Musalareddipalli and was taking treatment from a quack doctor of Nandyalampalli. The deceased died on 29th August, 1968. After receiving the death intimation, P.W. 18 started further investigation and filed a charge-sheet in the case. At the trial P.W. 1, the second wife and P.W. 2 the daughter of the deceased, and P.Ws. 3 and 4 his neighbours had been examined to speak to the occurrence. Of these P.Ws. 1 and 2 are said to be the eye-witnesses who had seen the accused, at the time, throwing acid and running away and P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the persons who had come to the scene on hearing the cries to whom P.Ws. 1 and 2 had reported of what had happened. The Court chose to say that they have stifled the truth and have given a twisted version of the incident and it would be hazardous to act on their testimony. With regard to the statements of the deceased Exhibit P-21 made to the Magistrate and Exhibit P-29 made to the head constable P.W. 16, the Court held that they are not admissible in evidence under section 32 of the Evidence Act, as dying declarations, as the evidence on record is insufficient to hold that the injuries sustained by the deceased are the cause of his death. Under section 32 of the Evidence Act, statements written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, will become evidence only when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction, which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. In this case the occurrence is said to have taken place on 6th June, 1968, and the deceased died on 29th August, 1968, nearly two months and 23 days later. He was undergoing treatment in the Proddatur Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Cuddapah Hospital and at his own request he was discharged on 24th July, 1968. If he was not in a condition to be discharged having sustained burns, it is unlikely that the hospital authorities would have allowed him to leave the hospital. Thereafter he had treatment at the Mission Hospital and then at the hands of a quack doctor. It is not known under what circumstances he died. There is no evidence to show that the injuries sustained by him due to the burns were in any way connected with his death. Therefore the Sessions Judge, was right in holding that the evidence is insufficient to hold that the injuries sustained by the deceased were the cause of his death and the statements Exhibits P-2I and P-29 made by the deceased, therefore, are not admissible in evidence under section 32 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) This petition therefore, fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.