IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Truthful and voluntary dying declaration can by itself form sole basis of conviction without necessity of corroboration.
(2) Number of witnesses – It is quality and not quantity of evidence which is determinative.

JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR J.

1. The Appellant, a sole accused in a case of Murder is before this Court challenging the dismissal of his Criminal Appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 1129 of 2000 by High Court of Gujarat, at Ahmedabad¹[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’.], wherein his challenge to the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 18.10.2000 passed by the Additional City Sessions Court No. 8, Ahmedabad²[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’ or ‘Trial Court’] in Sessions Case No. 158 of 1999, came to be dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Sessions Court are as under:

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Ishwarbhai Sankabhai Rabari, was residing with his family at Bukakhidas-ni Chawli, near Herbon School, Maninagar (East), Ahmedabad, and was employed as a driver with the A.M.T.S. (Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service). The deceased, Somabhai Sankabhai Rabari, who was the brother of the complainant, was running a tea stall in the Khokara area near the lavatory at the four-way junction close to Boriwala’s Chawli. It is the prosecution case that on 11.12.1998 at about 10:30 p.m., a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the appellant on account of the appellant having thrown a half-burnt cigarette into the bucket used by the deceased for washing cups and saucers, which fact was narrated by the deceased to the complainant. On the following morning, i.e., on 12.12.1998, the complainant (PW-1) was informed by Shiva Madrasi and Shankar Dhobi, residents of Pattharwali Chawli, that the deceased was lying in an injured condition near his tea stall, having sustained multiple blows.

3. Upon reaching the spot, the deceased is stated to have informed PW-1 that it was the Appellant who had assaulted him on account of the earlier quarrel. The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital by PW-1 in an Auto and on the way he again reiterated that the Appellant had inflicted the injuries upon him. However, upon arrival at the hospital, the deceased was declared dead. Thereafter, PW-1 lodged the complaint with the police.

4. During the course of investigation, the Appellant came to be detained by the police and, pursuant to the information furnished by him, the weapon of offence, namely a sharp knife, is stated to have been discovered. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed. The Trial Court framed the charges and the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and marked documentary evidence and upon appreciation of the evidence on record Trial Court came to the conclusion that Appellant was guilty of the offences under Section 302 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and convicted the Appellant and imposed sentences on him as noted above. Appellant filed an Appeal before the High Court which came to be dismissed vide impugned order. Hence this Appeal.

5. K. Sarada Devi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted as follows:

5.1. The prosecution case is based mainly on the complainant’s version and alleged oral dying declaration, but the independent witnesses who informed the complainant and were said to be present at the scene of crime were not examined, while medical and other evidence indicate that the deceased was unconscious and therefore incapable of making such a statement. Most panch and material witnesses turned hostile, and the so-called eyewitness admitted in the cross-examination that he had not actually seen the incident and his presence at the