IMPORTANT POINT
Merely because accused and deceased were claimed to be inimical towards each other that would not be sufficient to adopt a different method of analyzing or appreciating evidence which was common for all accused without any distinct or reasonably distinguishable features.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the conviction made and sentence imposed by the Trial Court was affirmed so far as the appellants are concerned. Four persons faced trial for allegedly causing homicidal death of one Kaushal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased ) after abducting him. All the four accused persons faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the IPC ). They were found guilty of the charged offences. Sentences of life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and two months respectively were imposed for three offences, and fine with default stipulation in case of non-payment of fine. The High Court in appeal held accused Mahabir Singh and Rakesh (A-2 and A-4 respectively) to be not guilty and directed their acquittal, but maintained the conviction and sentence so far as appellants are concerned.

2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:

Deceased and appellant No.1 (Narain Singh) were brothers. Appellant Hamir Singh is the son of appellant Narain. There was series of litigations between them in respect of some properties. On 4.5.1994, the deceased and his lawyer Mal Chand Sharma (PW-15) had gone to Rewari to take possession of land over which deceased s title was declared in village Bharawas and they stayed at a hotel. At about 9.30 a.m. they went to the Tehsil office, by a hired Jeep. Tehsildar asked them to come at 1.00 p.m. While the informant and the deceased were going on foot towards Jeep which was parked across road at about 10.30 a.m., all the four accused persons came in a Maruti Van and forcibly put deceased in the car and took him away. Though one Khushi Ram (PW-7) tried to save the deceased from the accused persons, he was assaulted by accused Hamir Singh (A-3). The accused persons took away the deceased. PW-15 immediately reported the matter to police. On the basis of his report, first information report was registered at about 10.50 a.m. and the investigation was undertaken. Police officials went in search of the deceased who was found in old house in village Bharawas. The statement of deceased was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C. ) which was treated subsequently to be the dying declaration. He was brought to Rewari for treatment. Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW-12) examined him at 12.00 noon. The deceased was taken to the Jeypore hospital but on the way he breathed his last in the afternoon. On examination, PW-12 had found 21 injuries on the body of the deceased. Subsequently when the deceased breathed his last post-mortem was conducted by PW-14 on 15.5.1995 and the injuries noticed by him were more or less the same as were noticed by PW-12. During the course of investigation, recoveries were made of the lathi and the khukri which were allegedly used by the accused persons for assaulting the deceased. On completion of investigation charge sheet was placed.

3. Twenty witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version and PWs 7 and 8 were stated to be eyewitnesses. Apart from PW-15, PW-8 was driver of the Jeep in which the deceased and PW-15 had travelled. PW-7 was claimed to be the eyewitness who tried to save the deceased when he was forcibly taken in the car and sustained injuries and PW-15 his advocate gave the first report to the police. During trial none of the alleged eyewitnesses supported the prosecution version. Therefore, prosecution relied on the dying declaration purported to have been made by the deceased. The Trial Court found that the dying declaration was acceptable to fasten the guilt of the accused and, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. All the four accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court which came to hold that the dying declaration w