# · 3 s.c.:R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS MUNIAPPAN v. STA'.l'E OF MADRAS

- **Citation:** [1962] 3 S.C.R. 869
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960-08-30
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JurusDIOTION: Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1961
- **Bench:** J. L. Kapur, M. HmAYATULLAH
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/3-s-c-r-supreme-oourt-reports-muniappan-v-sta-l-e-of-madras-2479
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Dying Declaration-Thumb impresBion of dead personAdmisBibility.
It was alleged that the appellant had stabbed the
deceased E. Soon after E was stabbed, he was taken to the
Police Station where the Sub-Inspector immediately started
recording his statement. After E had spoken one complete
sentence, he could not speak any further and it was found
that he had in fact died. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector took
the thumb impression of E upon the statement as recorded,
which was treated as the dying declaration.
Question was that, when the dying declaration was interrupted by death ensuing suddenly, then, whether such declaration would be admissible in evidence; and the probative
value of such dying declaration, which was described as an
iricomplete document.
Held, that the thumb impression taken on the dying
declaration after the man was dead, must be ignored. Corroboration would not always be necessary if the dying declaration was complete in its accusation and there is nothing to
show that the maker of the statement had anything further
to add.
In this case the dying declaration was a completed statement which was catagoric in character and there was nothing
to show that the victim had anything more to say. It therefore, needed no corroboration and could be relied upon.
Khu.halRao v. State of Bombay, [1958], S.C.R. 552, relied
on.
Cyril Waugh v. The King L1950]. A.C. 203, explained and
distinguished.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JurusDIOTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 49 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated August 30, 1960, of the Madra1 High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 1960 and referred Trial No. 38 of 1960.
V. N. Sethi, for the appellant.
R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
·
1961
Septemlm 27.
1961
ftl1111iappan
Y.
Stat1 of Afadraj
Hida)oa'ulloh J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19621
l!l61. September 27. Tho Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
HIDAYATULLATT, .T.-This is rm nppeal a~ainst
the judgmPnt of the High Court of Madras, with
special leave granted by this Court. The appellant
was convicted under s. 302, I.P.C., and sentenced
to <loath for the murder of one Elumahii on January
24, I !J61J, at Kanm\nlrnrichi. The facts of the case
are simple :
Two days before this occurrence the appellan i
Muniappan and Elumalai had a quarr<Jl at a tea.
stall. Though tho quarrel really was between the
appelhmt and some others, Elumalni had intervened
in that quarrel, and made some remarks about tho
appellant, and had ad\•iscd the party opposite to
him to make a complaint.
Two reports of that
incid('nt were made, one by tho appellant and tho
llther by his rivals. On January 24, l!)(iO, at about
12.30 J'.M., P."W. I :Muthuswami Udayar was having
a bath when he heard Elumalai calling out t-0 him
"Mama''. Muthuswami Cdayar ran to the place
from which this cry had come and found Elumalai
with several stab wounds on his bodv. ll[uthuswami
Cdayar questionecl Elumalai, and the latter told
him that it was the appellant llluniappan who had
caused injuries to him. illuthuswami gave first aid
to Elumalni, and meanwhile Elian alias Kundaswami
(P.W.2) and K.R. Perumal (P.W.8) also arrived on
the scene.
These persons carried Elumalai to the
Police Station H ousc which was at a distance of
about 80 yards. Tho Sub-Inspector was seen
approaching
from
the opposite direction and
Elumalai was taken to tho verandah of the Police
Station House.
The Sub-Inspector immediately
startecl recording the statement of Elumalai.
After
Elumnlai had. spoken one complete sentence, he
could not speak any further, and though he was
given some soda-water to drink, it was found that
he could not swallow it and had, in fact, died. The
Sub-Inspector thereupon took the thumb-impression
of Elumalai upon the statement as recorded, and
r
•••
-
3 S.@.R. SUPREME COURT R:E:PORTS
871
four other witnesses also signed or put their thumb
marks on it. Muniappan also reached the Police
Station House after a few minutes and virtually
surrendered himself to the po

## Text

-
--·
3 s.c.:R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
MUNIAPPAN
v.
STA'.l'E OF MADRAS
869
(J. L. KAPUR and M. HmAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Dying Declaration-Thumb impresBion of dead personAdmisBibility.
It was alleged that the appellant had stabbed the
deceased E. Soon after E was stabbed, he was taken to the
Police Station where the Sub-Inspector immediately started
recording his statement. After E had spoken one complete
sentence, he could not speak any further and it was found
that he had in fact died. Thereupon the Sub-Inspector took
the thumb impression of E upon the statement as recorded,
which was treated as the dying declaration.
Question was that, when the dying declaration was interrupted by death ensuing suddenly, then, whether such declaration would be admissible in evidence; and the probative
value of such dying declaration, which was described as an
iricomplete document.
Held, that the thumb impression taken on the dying
declaration after the man was dead, must be ignored. Corroboration would not always be necessary if the dying declaration was complete in its accusation and there is nothing to
show that the maker of the statement had anything further
to add.
In this case the dying declaration was a completed statement which was catagoric in character and there was nothing
to show that the victim had anything more to say. It therefore, needed no corroboration and could be relied upon.
Khu.halRao v. State of Bombay, [1958], S.C.R. 552, relied
on.
Cyril Waugh v. The King L1950]. A.C. 203, explained and
distinguished.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JurusDIOTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 49 of 1961.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated August 30, 1960, of the Madra1 High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 468 of 1960 and referred Trial No. 38 of 1960.
V. N. Sethi, for the appellant.
R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
·
1961
Septemlm 27.
1961
ftl1111iappan
Y.
Stat1 of Afadraj
Hida)oa'ulloh J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19621
l!l61. September 27. Tho Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
HIDAYATULLATT, .T.-This is rm nppeal a~ainst
the judgmPnt of the High Court of Madras, with
special leave granted by this Court. The appellant
was convicted under s. 302, I.P.C., and sentenced
to <loath for the murder of one Elumahii on January
24, I !J61J, at Kanm\nlrnrichi. The facts of the case
are simple :
Two days before this occurrence the appellan i
Muniappan and Elumalai had a quarr<Jl at a tea.
stall. Though tho quarrel really was between the
appelhmt and some others, Elumalni had intervened
in that quarrel, and made some remarks about tho
appellant, and had ad\•iscd the party opposite to
him to make a complaint.
Two reports of that
incid('nt were made, one by tho appellant and tho
llther by his rivals. On January 24, l!)(iO, at about
12.30 J'.M., P."W. I :Muthuswami Udayar was having
a bath when he heard Elumalai calling out t-0 him
"Mama''. Muthuswami Cdayar ran to the place
from which this cry had come and found Elumalai
with several stab wounds on his bodv. ll[uthuswami
Cdayar questionecl Elumalai, and the latter told
him that it was the appellant llluniappan who had
caused injuries to him. illuthuswami gave first aid
to Elumalni, and meanwhile Elian alias Kundaswami
(P.W.2) and K.R. Perumal (P.W.8) also arrived on
the scene.
These persons carried Elumalai to the
Police Station H ousc which was at a distance of
about 80 yards. Tho Sub-Inspector was seen
approaching
from
the opposite direction and
Elumalai was taken to tho verandah of the Police
Station House.
The Sub-Inspector immediately
startecl recording the statement of Elumalai.
After
Elumnlai had. spoken one complete sentence, he
could not speak any further, and though he was
given some soda-water to drink, it was found that
he could not swallow it and had, in fact, died. The
Sub-Inspector thereupon took the thumb-impression
of Elumalai upon the statement as recorded, and
r
•••
-
3 S.@.R. SUPREME COURT R:E:PORTS
871
four other witnesses also signed or put their thumb
marks on it. Muniappan also reached the Police
Station House after a few minutes and virtually
surrendered himself to the police.
One of his
clothes, which was stained with blood, was seized
and in one of his pockets was found a sheath which
was also seized as presumably belonging to the
knife with which the stab injuries were caused. On
a statement by Muniappan the Police went to a
garden and recovered from there a knife which later
was found to he stained with human blood. Investigation disclosed that this knife together with the
~heath was purchased by Muniappan from Ameer
Khan (P.\V. 6) on the evening of January 23, 1960.
The police therefore charged Muniappan with
an offence under s. 302 I.P.C. The evidence led
against him consisted of the testimony of Ameer
Khan (P.W. 6) about the purchase of the knife
c0mplete with a sheath for Rs. 6/-; the testimony
of witnesses about the incident which took place
two days before the murder; the dying declaration
made to Muthuswami (P.W. 1 ); the dying declaration
recorded by the Sub-Inspector in the presence of
witnesses; an alleged statement made by the accused
to the doctor when he was e:x:amined for an injury
on his thumb and the evidence of the alleged eye
witness Elian alias Kundaswami (P.W. 2).
The two
courts below convicted the appellant of the offence
of murder and sentenced him to death.
In this appeal it is contended that the evidence
of the eye witness (P.W. 2) and the statement of
the appellant made to the Doctor, who e:x:amined
him, having been excluded, there was not sufficient
evidence in the case if the dying declaration recorded by the Sub-Inspector is e:x:clnded. The main
argument in this case is, therefore, about the
admissibility and the probative value of the dying
declaration which is described as an incomplete
document completed dishonestly by getting the
thqmb imprPssion of Elumq,lai when he w~s dea,d,
1961
Muniappan
v.
State of fl.I adras
Hidayalu/{ah J.
Ufl
Moni•/JJl<n
V,
St.it of MairaJ
Hidoy•t•llch ].
'f
872
SUPREME COmtT REPORTS
[1962)
No doubt, the thumb impression of Elumo.lai '""
to.ken on the dying declaration after he was dead
and to tha.t extent the thumb impression must bo
ignored. We do not agree with the learned counsel
for tho appellant that this was <lone from an
improper or
di.~honost motive t-0 givo a colour of
completion to an incomplete document. Tho re.uson
for that ie not far to seek.
Th<' Suh-Inspector
after recording what Elumalai had to say noted
that "soon after Elumalai had said those words his
speeeh stopped. His life was gone.'' The thumb
impression followed this endorsement. It appears
to us that tho Sub-Inspector who was nonplussed
by the su'.lden collapse of Elumalai, did not know
what to do and he thought that it was proper to
take the thumb impression on the statement as it
had been made. The Sub-Insp!lctor should have
left tho d~cnment as it was, withonl taking the
thumb mark of the dead man, but wo do not feel
compelled to hold that he did so out of any improper motive, inasmuch as he had noted that tho man
was dead before the thumb impression was taken.
That also was his testimony in court, and that of
tho attesting witnesses. Tho fact, howev<'r, remains
that tho dying declaration was interrupted b~ death
ensuing Stlddenly. The question is whether
thi~
rlying <lecl11ration is admissible in evidence.
The loamed counsel for the appellant han
rcli<'d on a case of tho Privy Council from Jamaica
reported in Cyril II' augh v. The King( 1). In that
case, one Phillip Newby was shot and ho made a
clying declaration which was taken down but which .....
wa.8 not complcto because Newby suddenly foll into
a coma from which ho never recovered.
The Privy
Council rulod out that dying declaration on the
ground that being incomplete it conld not be taken
into acconnt after ignoring ths Jost aentonce which
'vas incomplete because in tho middle of it Newby
foll into a coma and diad. That dying declaration,
if oxamineci clearly 1how1 that Newby had not
(I) [1950] A.C. 203.
.
"
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
873
-~ charged any person by name but had described his
:issailant as "a man''. In the sentence which was
incomplete in his statement Newby had begun to
say "The man had an old grudge for me simply
because,.!' It is quite clear that if that sentence
had been completed, a clue would have been
furnished as to the identity of the assailant by the
'-
facts about the old grudge which Newby wanted to
disclose. The dying declaration, therefore, was an
incomplete statement and in so far as it went, had
no value unless it was completed by some other
evidence which of coursA would not have been a
part of Newby's statement. The reason for excluding that dying declaration was, therefore, quite
'
'
clear, and if the present dying declaration can be
said to be of a similar character, then the argument
of the counsel for the appellant must prevail.
The dying declaration in tJie present case was
as follows:
''Sir,
This day 24th January, 1960, in the noon
at l~.30 Muniappan, son of Kola Goundan of
Kannankurichi stabbed me in my body with
knife.
Soon after he said these words, his speech
stopped. His life was gone.
(Left thumb impression of) Elumalai.
witnesseR:
I. (Signed in Tamil) Muthuswami Udayar.
2. (Signed) K. R. Perumal.
3. (Signed in Tamil) C. Kannan.
4. (Left thumb impression of) Kundaswami
24th January, 1960.
(Signed) S. A. Amir
Sub-Inspector.
Here, the accusation against the appellant was com·
plete, and there is nothing to show that Elumalai
wished to say anything more or that he had anything more to add. In so far as the dying declaration, goes, it is a complete statement, and makes a
1961
Mun.iappan
v.
State of Madras
Jlida;'ratultah J.
1961
Momia;pan
v.
Stott of Afadrol
HiO.Y"t•/lah ].
874
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962)
very clear accusation against the appellant. If this ·"
dying declaration is takon into account, then it hardly
needs corroboration in view of the decision of this
Court in Khu,~hal Rao v. State of Rom.bay(').
The
Privy Council case, therefore, is clearly distinguishablo on facts and does not apply to the dying declaration with which we have to doal. The Privy Council caso was considered by this Court in Abdul Sattar .,;
v. Jfysore State ('), whero also the dying declaration was incomplete but was quite categoric in
charactor and definitely indicated that it was the
accused in that case who had shot the deceased.
The dying declaration was, therefore, acted upon.
The learned counsel for the appellant att-Ompted to
distinguish Abdul Sat tar's case(') on the ground that ,
in that ca.so thero was corroboration of the dying
<leclamtion and contended that an inrompletc dying
declaration, if categoric in character, may be actt-d
upon if corroborated but not if not ~o corroborated.
In our opinion, corroboration would not always be
ncc'Jssary if the dying declaration is completo in its
accusation and there is nothing to show that tho
makor of the statement had anything further to ,
add. That i8 the case here.
In thi1 case, howo,·er, •
there is some other evidence to incriminate tho accu8(,-d. The injuries were eauscd with a knife and a
knife was founcl at some distance from the scene of
occurrence on information furniHbed to tho police
by the accused. 'fhat knifo was found to be stained
with human blood and the accused had in his possession a sheath which wall identified as belonging to .._
the knife by the shopkeeper who had tho day previous sold the knife and the sheath to tho appellant
llfonia.ppan. There is also tho conduct of the appellant in surrendering himself to tho police at 12.40 P.M.
that is to say, within ten minut~s of the occurrence.
The appollant had an injury on his thumb
which be apparently got in attempting to stab
Eiumala.i. Tho injury was situated on the thumb of ....
his left hand on the lateral side and must have been -
(ll[l958JS.C.R: 552.
(1) A. 1. II.. (19'6) s. c. 168;
..
~ 3 s~C;R, SUl?RlilME COURT REPORTS
875
caused when he struck Elumalai repeatedly holding
him with his left hand and wielding the weapon
with his right hand. There is also evidence of motive
in the shape of a quarrel which had taken place
only two days previously and in respect of which
the rival parties had made their respective reports
"' to the police. There was also corroboration in the
shape of a dying declaration made by Elumalai to
the first prosecution witness Muthuswami when he
reached the spot after Elumalai had raised a cry for
help.
In view of all these circumstances we are
satisfied that the evidence in this case is sufficient
-t to warrant the conviction of the appellant on a
charge of murder. The dying declaration i~, in our
opinion, categoric in character and unmistakably
accuses the appellant of the crime and we have no
hesitation in accepting it.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
1961
Muniappa·n
v.
State of M4dras
Hida_yatul/ah J.