The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dying declaration, if appears to be truthful, does not require any corroboration. However, in this case, the severe nature of the injuries and lack of corroboration led to the acquittal of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure putting to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2013 and the order of sentence dated 21.03.2013, passed in Sessions Case No. 906 of 2009/Sessions Trial Case No. 280 of 2009, by the trial court, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Heard Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

3. A fardbeyan of the widow of the deceased, Sairun Nisha (PW 9) is the basis for registration of the FIR, giving rise to Sanokhar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2009. According to the FIR, on 27.02.2009, the victim had gone out for casting bricks. While he was returning to his home, the appellant stabbed him in his abdomen. The deceased, thereafter, rushed from the place of occurrence towards his village, screaming in pain and fell down in the midway, in front of the house of one Jahangir (PW 3). The deceased was brought to his house first and was thereafter taken towards a hospital. On his way to the hospital, the deceased is said to have died.

4. Upon registration of the FIR, inquest report was prepared and the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem examination. The postmortem report, which is exhibit-2, found following antemortem injuries: -

“One punctured (stab) wound 2 ½” x ¾” x abdominal cavity deep was found on the left part of abdomen 4” away from midline, 6 ½” below the left nipple at the level of umbilicus. The coils of intestine were found protruding outside the wound. The spleen, mesentery, right lobe of liver were found lacerated. The whole abdominal cavity was full of blood and blood clots.”

5. From the inquest report, which is exhibit-5, it appears that the omentum of the deceased was found protruding from his stomach. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted its charge-sheet on 11.06.2009, whereupon cognizance was taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, on 15.06.2009 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Subsequently, on 08.09.2009, a charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC was framed against the appellant. At the trial, altogether 11 witnesses came to be examined for the prosecution. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses, complying with the requirement of Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the trial court asked the appellant to explain the circumstances emerging against him based on the evidence. He, however, denied all the circumstances. The prosecution adduced documentary evidence also including the FIR (exhibit-4), postmortem report (exhibit-2) and the inquest report (exhibit-5).

6. Apparently, based on the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses to the effect that the deceased had disclosed this appellant’s name in injured condition to PW 3, Jahangir, that the appellant had stabbed him, the trial court has recorded conviction taking into account the corroboration in the form of medical evidence.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the trial court has committed gross error by basing its finding of conviction on the testimony of the witnesses to the effect that the deceased had disclosed the name of this appellant after he (the deceased) had sustained injuries. He has, firstly, contended that considering the nature of injury, which the deceased was found to have sustained, it was impossible for him to speak, much less taking the name of the person, who had stabbed him. He has, secondly, submitted that in t