A) Abstract / Headnote

The Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from a fatal altercation over a construction dispute. The appellant was found guilty of stabbing the deceased, Devi Singh @ Tillu, during the incident. The Court addressed issues of evidentiary inconsistencies, inconclusive forensic results, and the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC as a dying declaration. The evidence included eyewitness testimonies, medical reports, and the recovery of the murder weapon at the appellant’s instance. The judgment reiterates the precedence of corroborated eyewitness accounts and the legal value of dying declarations.

Keywords: Section 302 IPC, dying declaration, forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, Section 34 IPC.

B) Case Details

• i. Judgment Cause Title: Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh
• ii. Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2806 of 2024
• iii. Judgment Date: 08 July 2024
• iv. Court: Supreme Court of India
• v. Quorum: Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
• vi. Author: Justice Surya Kant
• vii. Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 218 : 2024 INSC 480
• viii. Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302, 34, 147, 148, 149 IPC; Section 161 CrPC; Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• ix. Judgments Overruled: None
• x. Case is Related to Law Subject: Criminal Law

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

This case stems from a violent incident involving the construction of a wall, where disputes between the appellant and the victims escalated into a fatal attack. Devi Singh @ Tillu succumbed to knife wounds inflicted by the appellant, while another victim, Tularam, died days later from injuries inflicted during the same altercation. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts, medical examinations, and the recovery of the weapon used in the crime.

D) Facts of the Case

• On 20 June 2004, a construction dispute led to an altercation near the victim’s residence in Bhopal.
• The appellant and other accused verbally abused and then assaulted the victims using knives, sticks, and rods.
• Tillu locked himself in a nearby Jhuggi but was pursued by the accused. The appellant stabbed him in the abdomen, resulting in severe injuries.
• Both victims were hospitalized. Tillu succumbed to his injuries on the same night, while Tularam passed away five days later.
• The appellant’s weapon was recovered based on his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Eyewitnesses corroborated the sequence of events, implicating the appellant in the crime.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Were contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution’s case sufficient to overturn the conviction?
2. Did the absence of blood group classification and inconclusive FSL reports affect the prosecution’s case?
3. Could the statement under Section 161 CrPC be treated as a dying declaration without a medical fitness certificate?

F) Petitioner’s Arguments

1. The appellant disputed the presence at the crime scene, citing lack of clear identification.
2. Contradictions existed between eyewitness accounts and the site map prepared by the Investigating Officer.
3. The weapon’s forensic analysis did not conclusively link it to the crime.
4. The dying declaration lacked validity without medical certification of fitness.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. Eyewitness testimonies were corroborated by medical and forensic evidence.
2. The appellant’s disclosure statement and subsequent recovery of the weapon provided substantial incrimination.
3. Section 161 CrPC statements were admissible as dying declarations under exceptions in the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Allegations of procedural lapses in the FIR and investigation were insufficient to exculpate the appellant.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder.
2. Section 34 IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
3. Section 27 IEA: Admissibility of statements leading to the discovery of new facts.
4. Section 161 CrPC: Examination of witnesses by police.

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

• Eyewitness Testimonies: Consistent and corroborated accounts of the incident established the appellant’s involvement.
• Dying Declaration: Statements under Section 161 CrPC were admissible as dying declarations under Section 32 IEA.
• Weapon Recovery: The knife recovered on the appellant’s disclosure substantiated the prosecution’s case.
• Forensic Evidence: While blood group results were inconclusive, the presence of human blood on the weapon bolstered the evidence.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court noted the importance of corroborative evidence and dismissed procedural lapses, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.

c. Guidelines Issued

None explicitly.

J) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment reinforced the principle that minor procedural lapses do not invalidate substantial evidence when the guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the value of dying declarations and the role of corroborative evidence in affirming convictions.

K) References

1. Shivanna v. State of Hunsur Town Police, (2010) 15 SCC 91.
2. Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47.
3. Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238.
4. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710.
5. John Pandian v. State, (2010) 14 SCC 129.