IMPORTANT POINT
Dying declaration cannot be discarded on the ground that it had only thumb impression of deceased.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 154 - Evidence Act, Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Death of victim after lodging FIR -The trial Court did not place much reliance on the evidence of eye-witnesses, but on evidence of the deceased which was given before the police which formed the first information report and was treated as a dying declaration- High Court in analyzing the evidence is required sevidence and it could not be said that there was total absence of reasons- The contention that information given by deceased could not be treated as dying declaration, not accepted- It was established that the deceased was in mentally fit condition- The High Court rightly held that presence of PWs 1 and 2 did not result in any presumutption of tutoring, when the FIR was recorded- Merely because there was a thumb impression on the FIR, and not the signature as stated by PW-1, that would snot falsify the prosecution version= [Paras 6, to 9]

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The case involves a criminal appeal concerning charges of murder and related offences under the Indian Penal Code, with the accused facing trial for their alleged involvement in a violent incident resulting in the death of the deceased (!) (!) .
The prosecution's case primarily relied on the evidence of the deceased, which was given before the police and was treated as a dying declaration. The trial court and the high court both considered this declaration as credible, and it played a significant role in establishing the guilt of the accused (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that a dying declaration cannot be disregarded solely because it contained only the thumb impression of the deceased instead of a signature. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased was in a mentally fit condition at the time of making the declaration, and the declaration was read over to him before he thumb-impressed it (!) (!) (!) .
The court found that the presence of witnesses at the time of recording the dying declaration and the circumstances under which it was made supported its reliability. The relationship of the witnesses to the deceased did not automatically diminish their credibility, as their testimonies were tested on acceptability and credibility (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence from eye-witnesses was considered but given less reliance compared to the evidence of the deceased, especially since the trial court did not place much reliance on the eyewitness testimonies. Nonetheless, the high court analyzed and accepted the evidence of the witnesses who testified about the incident and the deceased’s condition (!) (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the mere presence of a thumb impression on the FIR, as opposed to a signature, does not falsify the prosecution's case. The contents of the FIR were read over to the deceased, and he had acknowledged them, supporting the credibility of the information provided (!) (!) .
The evidence established that the deceased was in a condition to make the declaration, and the high court's decision to rely on this evidence was justified. The court also noted that the relationship between witnesses and the deceased does not automatically undermine their credibility if their testimonies are otherwise acceptable (!) (!) .
The appeals were dismissed, affirming the judgments of the lower courts, and upholding the conviction based on the evidence, including the dying declaration and the testimonies of the witnesses (!) .

Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case?

JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Twelve persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ), were convicted by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and three years for the rest of the offences. They preferred three appeals before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By the impugned judgment the appeals were dealt with together and conviction and sentence in respect of Tulua (A-1), Babulal (A-2), Mahesh (A-6), Sahab Singh (A-9), Kishan Singh (A-10), Netram (A-11) and Jagdish Prasad (A-12) were maintained. Sentences of Talua (A-1), Babulal (A-2) and Netram (A-11) were reduced to one year and two years respectively for offences relatable to Sections 147 and 148 respectively. The conviction in respect of Uttam Singh (A-3), Phool Singh (A-4), Sobran Singh (A-5), Krishna Kant (A-7) and Sarman Singh (A-8) was set aside. Tulua, Babulal and Netram (A-1, A-2 and A-11 respectively) were acquitted of the offence relatable to Section 148. They were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, while the convictions of Sahab Singh (A-9), Kishan Singh (A-10) and Jagdish Prasad (A-12) under Section 148 IPC were maintained with modified sentences. The said judgment is impugned in these appeals.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell leaving out unnecessary details is as follows:

Mahila Raj Kunwar (PW-20) was previously the wife of accused Babulal (A-2). This marriage was performed while she was a minor. Since the character and reputation of Babulal was not without blemish and he was a habitual drunkard and used to gamble and had illicit relations with ladies, there was tension in the relationship between Raj Kumar and Babulal. When the former tried to reform the latter and requested him to follow the correct path in life, she was beaten and was thrown out of his house in December, 1985. Thereafter, she started living in the house of her father. According to the customs prevalent she was re-married on 3rd March, 1986 with Chhatar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). This led to hostility and Babu became inimical to deceased. He tried to arouse the communal and caste feelings. On the date of occurrence i.e. 9th March, 1986 while deceased was drawing water from his well all the accused persons reached there. Accused Jagdish, Sarman and Kasiram were armed with a Luhangi each. Accused Sabo was armed with a gun, accused Mahesh was armed with a knife and accused Pappu was armed with a hockey stick. Accused Sobran, Kishan Lal and Phoola were also each armed with Luhangi. In addition, accused Netram, Tulua and Babu were holding lathis in their hands. After reaching the place where deceased was standing accused Jagdish caught hold of him and other accused persons with common intention to cause his death inflicted injuries by respective weapons. Though the deceased cried for help no one immediately came to save him. However, when his mother (PW-2) reached near him, all the accused persons left the place. The deceased along with his mother (PW-2) and Pran Singh (PW-1) went to the Police Chowk, Magrauni and lodged a first information report regarding the incident with the then Station Incharge. Pran Singh (PW-1) had gone to the place on hearing from Brijesh Kumar (PW-11). When report was lodged Shiv Baksh Singh (PW-16) sent the deceased for medical examination where Dr. Ajay Kumar Pathak (PW-19) conducted medical examination. He found nearly 17 injuries on his body. There were four internal injuries also. Most of them were inflicted with sharp edged weapons whereas some were caused by hard and blunt weapons. The deceased was referred to the District Hospital, Shiv Puri for better treatment. Subsequently, the deceased breathed his last at the Primary Centre itself and could not be taken to the referral hos

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1078

IMPORTANT POINTDying declaration cannot be discarded on the ground that it had only thumb impression of deceased.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Dying declaration cannot be discarded on the ground that it had only thumb impression of deceased.