Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, Mridul Kumar Kalita, JJ.
Sri Shabilal Chetry, S/O Late Mon Bahadur Chetry - Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam Represented by PP – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 70/2020
Decided On : 08-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. K. Das, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. S. Jahan, Public Prosecutor, Assam.
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and the declarant was in a fit mental state, supported by corroborative evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Conviction for murder - Appellant convicted for life imprisonment based on oral dying declarations made to witnesses and corroborated by ocular evidence - Testimonies of witnesses were found credible despite minor discrepancies - Conviction upheld. (Paras 63, 64)
(B) Dying Declaration - Legal principles - Oral dying declarations can be the sole basis for conviction if found trustworthy - Court must ensure the declarant was in a fit state of mind to make the declaration. (Paras 49, 50)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Ganesh Thapa, who was stabbed with a Khukri. The incident occurred on 28.11.1989, leading to the victim's death after several days in the hospital. Witnesses testified to the dying declarations made by the victim implicating the appellant. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found the testimonies of the witnesses credible and corroborated, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of murder. (Paras 63, 64)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the dying declarations and the credibility of the eyewitnesses. (Paras 39, 40)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the oral dying declarations made by the deceased were credible and corroborated by other evidence, justifying the conviction under Section 302. (Paras 63, 64)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.
2. This criminal appeal has been registered on filing of a memo of appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant Sri Shabilal Chetry, who is presently serving out his sentence in Jail.
3. In this appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Diphu, Karbi-Anglong in the Sessions Case No. 56/1991, whereby, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 2(two) months.
4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows: -
i. That, on 28.11.1989, one Sri Karna Bahadur Chetry had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Manja Police Outpost, inter alia, alleging that on that day, at about 5:30 PM, Sri Shabilal Chetry(the appellant) had grievously injured one Ganesh Thapa by stabbing him in his stomach with a Khukri, (a type of machete)without any reason.
ii. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, the In-Charge of Manja Police Outpost made a G.D. Entry No. 476 dated 27.11.1989 and forwarded the same to the Officer-In-Charge of Diphu Police Station for registering a case. Accordingly, Diphu P.S. Case No. 278/89 was registered under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. As the injured Ganesh Thapa later on died in the Diphu Civil Hospital, a prayer was made to the Court for adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in this case, which was allowed.
iii. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Sri Shabilal Chetry. Though, the appellant was arrested during the course of the investigation, however, he was later on granted bail and he faced the trial remaining on bail.
iv. Initially, on 21.02.1992, the charge under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the appellant, however, later on, on 03.10.2019, the charge was altered to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The said charge was read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the meanwhile, the prosecution side had already examined its witnesses and it declined to re-examine them after alteration of the charges from 304 to 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the defence side also declined to recall the witnesses for re-cross-examination after alteration of charges.
v. To bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution side examined as many as 10(ten) prosecution witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. However, he declined to adduce any evidence in defence. Ultimately, by the judgment and order, which is impugned in this appeal, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the manner as already described in paragraph No.3 hereinabove.
5. Before considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the evidence which is available on record.
6. PW-1, Sri Krishnabandhu Giri, has deposed that on the day of occurrence, while he was taking rest, the deceased Ganesh came near his house and fell down. He was crying and was injured in his stomach. PW-1 has deposed that on his inquiry, Ganesh told him that Shabilal Chetry, (appellant), stabbed him in the stomach. PW-1 has also deposed that Ganesh was sent to hospital at Manja for treatment and he also saw that the appellant was caught by the people and was taken to the police station.
7. During his cross-examination, PW-1 has deposed that he had not seen the
