IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant before us, after being acquitted by the Trial Court, on appeal by the State, was convicted by the High Court for commission of offences under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arises from killing of one Jayantibhai (deceased) in the evening hours of 10.07.1995 with knife blows. In his statement supporting the FIR, PW-1, brother of the deceased has attributed commission of the offence to the appellant as also two other individuals who were arraigned as accused. They are the father and brother of the appellant. The prosecution case is that upon receiving knife injuries, the deceased had collapsed after running few paces. Subsequently, he was brought to his residence and thereafter taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. The autopsy surgeon found his death to have been caused by shock and hemorrhage due to stab injuries. He had identified altogether eight injuries on the body of the deceased, which in his opinion were ante-mortem.

2. The prosecution case is primarily founded on evidence of PW-2 (Parvatiben), who is presented by the prosecution as eyewitness. She happens to be a distant relative of the deceased. The other part of evidence on which prosecution has relied upon is dying declaration of the deceased, which was made before PW-2 and PW-3 (Shivaji), brother of the deceased, in response to the latter’s query about the identity of the assailant. PW-4 (Rameshji) and PW-5 (Laxmanji) have corroborated this. The Trial Court acquitted three individuals arraigned as accused mainly based on medical evidence and the reasoning of the Trial Court would appear from paragraph 17 of the judgment of the Trial Court. We reproduce the said paragraph below:

“17. According to P.M. Note, there were total (08) eight injuries of “chhari” (long Knife) on the body of the deceased. One (01) “chhari” (long Knife) has been recovered in “Muddamal.” It has been produced as “Muddamal” article number 9. And Dr. Pratikbhai Ravjibhai Patel has deposed below Ex.28 that injuries number 3, 6, 7 and 8 can be done with that “chhari” (long Knife) and according to his version above mentioned any injuries were not sufficient to succumb death. It means death of the deceased has not been done due to injuries number 3, 7 and 8. And death has not been caused due to “Muddamal” article number 9. Further injuries have been sustained on account of two (02) different “chhari” (long Knife) police has not recovered other “chhari” (long Knife) which channels to death. And any witness has not deposed that they have seen such “chhari” (long Knife) any witness has not deposed that there were more than three (03) injuries on body of the deceased. Each witness has specifically deposed that Rameshji had inflicted two (02) blows on chest and one (01) on stomach of the deceased, which they had seen. Thus, deposition of the eye witness and opinion of the Medical Officer and P.M. Notes have been having contradictions in vital aspects. Deceased Jayantiji had also stated in his oral dying declaration before the witnesses that Rameshji had sustained two (02) injuries in chest and one (01) injury in stomach to him.”

3. Mr. D.N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that there were substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the witnesses statements and the eyewitnesses herself, being a relative, was not a neutral person. He has also taken us through the part of the judgment in which the Trial Court found contradiction in the prosecution version as regards the manner in which the knife blows were inflicted as also identification of the assault weapon. His submission is that the medical evidence was clear that the knife which was muddamal 9 (the seized knife) could not have caused fatal injury. He also raised doubt on the authenticity of the dying declaration. The High Court held, reversing the Trial Court’s judgment:

“13.0. Thus, it is evident from the Postmortem Note that the cause of death is knife i