Important point
If a dying declaration is found to be reliable then there is no need for corroboration by any witness, and conviction can be sustained on its basis alone.

judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant who was found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3.Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:

On 28.9.1993, between 6.45 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. Sisir Kr. Das @ Ajoy (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was shot by the present appellant in front of his house at College Para and immediately thereafter Ajoy was shifted to hospital where after ten days he succumbed to his injuries. One Satya Ranjan Das (PW 1), cousin brother of Ajoy, getting information from one local boy about the occurrence, came to learn from injured Ajoy at hospital that he was shot at by his step uncle Bijoy Das. The appellant immediately thereafter lodged the written complaint at Raijung P.S.

On the basis of the written complaint of Satya Ranjan Das which was received by the local P.S. at about 19.50 hours of 28.9.1993 S.I. S. Pradhan of Raijung P.S. took up the investigation and in course of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, made seizure in respect of a bicycle used by the victim Ajoy, visited hospital and recorded statement of Ajoy and other witnesses of the occurrence, collected declaration given by Ajoy to the attending doctor and S.I. Pradhan also collected the post mortem report and finally, submitted charge sheet against the present appellant both under Section 302 IPC as well as under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short Arms Act). The learned Sessions Judge after framing charge under Section 302 IPC as well as under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act explained the same to the appellant and the appellant pleaded not guilty to both the charges and claimed for trial.

Prosecution, during trial examined 16 witnesses including PW.1 the FIR maker, PW.4 wife of the deceased who was an eyewitness of the occurrence and PW.6, PW.8 and PW.9. who came to learn from deceased Ajoy that he was shot at by the appellant. Prosecution also examined PW.14 doctor Jiban Krishana Bhaduri who conducted operation of Ajoy and who also recorded a declaration of Ajoy disclosing the name of the appellant as his assailant, PW.15 Dr. Rash Behari Ghosh, conducted post-mortem examination and PW.16 was the investigating officer. Apart from oral evidence, prosecution also produced before the Trial Court the written complaint of PW.1, bed head ticket of Ajoy Das consisting declaration of Ajoy recorded by PW.14, post-mortem report and several seizure lists.

The learned Trial Court, on perusal of prosecution evidence both oral and documentary and after considering submissions of both the sides, found the present appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and he was convicted accordingly. However, the Trial Court did not find any material to hold the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

4. The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of PW4 the wife of the victim and also relied on the evidence of PWs 6, 8 and 9 along with PW1. It is to be noted that the deceased during his treatment in the hospital had categorically stated that the appellant has assaulted him. The Trial Court did not find any substance in the plea that at the behest of PW1 the false case has been foisted.

5.In appeal the High Court, as noted above, dismissed the appeal.

6.In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PW4 clearly lacks credence. The alleged statement before PWs 6, 8, 9 and 14 cannot be treated as a dying declaration. Learned counsel of the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgment.

7.We see no reason to doubt the veracity of the dying declarations especially since there is consistency between them. We see no reason why the doctor or the other witnesses should make a