Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
SHAMA – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal No. 2311 of 2009
Decided On : 14-12-2016
(b) Criminal trial – False implication – Plea of false implication of accused persons by police – No evidence – Dying declaration narrating entire incident and specifically mentioning the accused persons – Dying declaration once proved can be relied upon for convicting the accused persons (Para 30, 31, 32)
AIR 2002 SC 526; (1789) 1 Leach 500 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – No format prescribed – No specific authority prescribed for recording the same – Only requirement of dying declaration being deceased’s fitness of mind and capacity to recollect the situation – No illegality in Inspector of police recording the dying declaration. (Para 35, 36, 37)
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 32 – Dying declaration – Recorded by Inspector of police on the deceased being admitted in hospital – Due procedural care taken in recording the statement – Deceased dying after ten days – No second statement recorded by Magistrate – Not required. (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
Three accused, namely, Shama, Sube Singh and Jai Singh were charged under Section 302/34 IPC for murder of one Naurang. Charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1878 was also framed against Jai Singh.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar convicted all the three accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Accused Jai Singh was held guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act also.
By a common impugned judgment the High Court dismissed both the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in conviction of the appellant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.403-DB of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment/order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Trial Court.
2. The case of the prosecution is as under: Naurang-the deceased was an inhabitant of Malia Mandi, Hansi. About 8-9 months prior to the occurrence, his daughter Suman was married to son of Sube Singh (Accused No.3). However, the relations between the two families had become strained due to this marriage.
3. On 09.10.1997, at about 9.15 p.m., Naurang-the deceased was going on his bicycle to attend his duty at Hafed Spinning Mill, Hansi. When he reached near nursery, Sube Singh, his brother-Shama (appellant herein) and one fat man-Jai Singh came on a scooter. Jai Singh asked to Naurang about his name and when he told his name, he fired a shot from his pistol on Naurang's abdomen, which hit a little above his Navel. Some passers-by took Naurang to a General Hospital, Hansi. Dr. S.K. Gupta (PW-1) Medical Officer of General Hospital, Hansi informed the police about the admission of injured Naurang in Hospital. After receiving information, Mam Chand, Inspector (PW-11) came to the Hospital and made an application seeking opinion of the doctor about the fitness of Naurang so as to enable him to record his statement. After getting the opinion of the Doctor that Naurang was fit to make statement, Mam Chand, Inspector (PW-11) recorded the statement of Naurang(Ex.PF/1). Thereafter he sent the same to the Police Station through Constable Sumer Singh for registration of the case. Since the condition of Norang was serious, he was referred by the doctor to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak.
4. Thereafter Mam Chand, Inspector (PW-11) went to the scene of occurrence, prepared the site plan and took possession of the bicycle and blood stained earth from the scene of occurrence.
5. On 13.10.1997, Rajinder Kumar, S.I.(PW-13) arrested the appellant-Shama. On 18.10.1997, the statements of the witnesses were recorded.
6. On 19.10.1997, Rajinder Kumar, S.I.(PW-13) received a wireless message from PGI Rohtak that injured Naurang had expired due to the injuries suffered by him. Accordingly, an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC") was registered against the accused persons.
7. On 10.11.1997, after getting a secret information, Mam Chand-Inspector (PW-11) arrested Jai Singh with a pistol of 12 bore. Sube Singh was also arrested.
8. The challan was prepared by Mam Chand, Inspector on 30.12.1997 and the same was forwarded for presentation in the Court.
9. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed against all the three accused, namely, Shama, Sube Singh and Jai Singh, under Section 302/34 IPC. Charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1878 was also framed against Jai Singh.
10. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and 3 witnesses were examined in defence. The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").
11. Vide order dated 24.08.2000, the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar convicted all the three accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. Accused Jai Singh was held guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act also.
12. By order of sentence dated 26.08.2000, all the three accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. Jai Singh was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrent
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
