The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the benefit of doubt principle in criminal cases based on the unreliability of evidence.

Headnote:
Benefit of Doubt - Criminal Appeal - Section 307 IPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the prosecution case under Section 307 IPC, the alleged dying declaration before the Magistrate, and the evidence of the sole eyewitness. The court highlighted the unreliability of the dying declaration and the disbelief of the eyewitness testimony, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused under Section 307 IPC.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution case involved the assault on Atul Prakash Shukla, resulting in severe injuries. The court analyzed the alleged dying declaration and the evidence of the sole eyewitness, ultimately leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Finding of the Court:

The court found the alleged dying declaration before the Magistrate to be unreliable and disbelieved the evidence of the sole eyewitness, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the dying declaration and the credibility of the sole eyewitness testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliability of the dying declaration and the disbelief of the sole eyewitness testimony, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused.
Final Decision: The High Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused Arvind Shukla, and the appeals were accordingly dismissed.

MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 1. 3. 2002 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 1981.

( 2 ) ONE of the appeals has been filed by the complainant and the other by the State Government.

( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 4 ) THE prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR lodged by Anil Prakash Shukla (PW1) was that about 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence in question Atul Prakash Shukla, brother of the first informant was beaten by accused Arvind Shukla and despite having assaulted him, accused Arvind tried to implicate Atul Prakash in a false case but could not succeed. Since then Atul Prakash Shukla and Arvind were on inimical terms. It was further alleged that on 21. 10. 1979 first informant Anil Prakash Shukla and his brother Atul Prakash Shukla, deceased in this case, were going to their residential house after taking a round in the market and when they were in front of the house of Shyam Babu Sharma in Mohalla Gumti Qasba Auriya accused Arvind @ Pappu and Virendra Dubey suddenly appeared there. They cried that Atul be killed whereupon accused Arvind gave one knife blow on Atul. He ran crying and fell down on the Chabutra of Shyam Babu Sharma. Besides the first information, the incident was witnessed by Dinesh Shukla, Ramesh Kumar Tripathi and Laljee Chaurasiya and the accused persons were identified by electric light. The accused persons ran away when challenged. Anil Prakash along with the witnesses came on the Chabutra where Atul was lying injured. He sent Laljee Chaurasiya to call his father who immediately arrived there and asked Anil Prakash Shukla to lodge the report. He also carried Atul to the police station in a rickshaw leaving Anil Prakash (PW1) on the spot. Anil Prakash Shukla scribed the report Ext. Ka 1 and lodged the same at police station Auraiya at 8. 10 P. M. The police Station was situated only at a distance of about 3 furlongs from the place of occurrence. On the written report of Anil Prakash Shukla, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered against Arvind Shukla, Virendra Dubey and Anil @ Pappu in the General Diary at Sl. No. 36, which also indicates that injured Atul had reached the police station along with the first informant Anil Prakash Shukla. Injured Atul was sent to Hallet Hospital, Kanpur with Constable 536 Ram Prakash who also carried with him the Chithi Majroom. On account of a strike, Atul could not be admitted in Hallet Hospital, therefore, he was taken to Ursula Hospital, Kanpur. Atul's father (PW2) Ram Sewak Shukla accompanied Atul when he was taken to Kanpur in a bus.

( 5 ) DR. S. N. Sharma (PW6) of Ursula Hospital examined the injuries of Atul at 11 P. M. on 21. 10. 1979 and found the following injuries:

i) Incised wound 3. 00 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on left side of scalp 7. 0 cm above left ear. ii) Incised wound 2 1/2 cm x 2. 00 cm x 1 1/2 cm on front of left shoulder joint iii) Incised wound 3. 00 cm x 1 1/2 cm x cavity of abdomen deep on right side of abdomen about 7. 00 cm above umbilicus. X-ray advised. iv) Incised wound 4. 00 cm x 2 1/2 cm x 2. 00 cm on middle aspect of front of left forearm about 5. 00 cm below left elbow. v) Incised wound 4 1/2 cm x 2 1/2 cm x 2. 00 cm about 1 cm below the medial of injury No. 4.

( 6 ) THE prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the sole eyewitness Anil Prakash Shukla (PW1) as well as the alleged dying declaration of the deceased Atul. The question is whether these should be believed or not.

( 7 ) AS regards the alleged dying declaration before the Magistrate (Ex. Kha 1), it has been pointed out by the High Court that the Magistrate before whom the said dying declaration was said to have been recorded, was not produced as a witness before the learned Sessions Judge and hence the accused did not have an opportunity to cross examine the Magistrate. Moreover, it may be mentioned that the deceased died several days af

Click Here to Read the rest of this document