1989 Supreme(Raj) 777
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.S.Byas, Farooq Hasan, JJ.
Pratap Singh & ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Raj - Respondent
D. B. Cri. Appeal No. 340 of 1987.
Decided On : 08-08-1989
For the Appellants:Mr. A. K. Gupta and Mr Rajesh Mooliya, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Alvi, P.P.
Dying declarations are admissible in evidence under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872, but they must be recorded in accordance with the Police Rules and must be reliable and trustworthy.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302/34, IPC - DYING DECLARATION - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELIABILITY - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 32(1) - POLICE RULES, RULE 6.20 - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants Pratap Singh, Sujan Singh, and Gopal Singh were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, for the murder of Kalu Singh under Section 302/34, IPC. The conviction was based solely on dying declarations allegedly made by Kalu Singh before his death.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the dying declarations were inadmissible and unreliable due to several infirmities and inconsistencies. The Court noted that the medical evidence suggested that Kalu Singh was not in a fit state of mind to make a coherent statement due to the severity of his injuries. Additionally, the Court found that the dying declarations were not recorded in accordance with the Police Rules and that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding their creation.
Issues: 1. Whether the dying declarations were admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the dying declarations were reliable and trustworthy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the dying declarations were inadmissible in evidence because they were not recorded in accordance with the Police Rules and because there were suspicious circumstances surrounding their creation. 2. The Court held that the dying declarations were not reliable and trustworthy because the medical evidence suggested that Kalu Singh was not in a fit state of mind to make a coherent statement and because there were inconsistencies between the dying declarations and other evidence in the case.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and acquitted them of the charges against them.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar dated 31.7.87 by which appellants. Pratap Singh, Sujan Singh & Gopal Singh have been found guilty of the offence under Section 302/34, IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50/- each (in default, 15 days R.I.).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on a report lodged by Kalu Singh (deceased) on 5.10.85 at about 6.20 AM. at police station Gangdhar (Jhalawar district) in respect of an incident said to have taken place on 4.10.85 at about 6-6.30 P.M. in village Kachnara, a criminal case for the under Section 307, IPC was registered against the appellants for the injuries on the person of Kalusingh. The case, upon the death of Kalu Singh due to the injuries on his person, was subsequently converted into for the under Section 302, IPC. According to the version in the F.I.R. there was some enmity in between Pratap Singh and Kalusingh (deceased), and on the date of occurrence when Kalusingh (deceased) was returning from his field then in the way, all the three appellants duly armed with weapons like Kalpawali stick' & simple lathi surrounded Kalusingh and thereupon inflicted injuries on his body thereby Kalusingh fell down and the appellants named in the report fled away from the scene of occurrence. After one hour of the incident, it is alleged brother of the informant namely Pratap Singh and three persons of the village came at the place of occurrence in search of the informant (Kalusingh). As per the version given out in the F.I.R., the informant did not know whether any person was present at the place of incident or had witnessed the occurrence.
3. Kalu Singh (informant) died in the hospital on 6.10.1985. The police submitted a challan against the accused-appellants after usual investigation. The appellants were charged with the of Section 302/34. IPC. Prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses and produced documents in order to substantiate the charge of . The appellants denied the charges as well as allegation levelled by the prosecution witnesses during the course of trial and therefore, in defence, four witnesses were examined and some documents were also produced. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court convicted & sentenced the appellants as mentioned at the very threshold of this judgment.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having browsed through the entire record, in our view, first a brief narration of salient facts from the evidence on record will help delineate the forensic controversy.
5. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Khatik (PW 1) the then Medical Officer Incharge Government Dispensary, Gangdhar (Jhalawar) who, on 5.10.85 medically examined the injuries on the person of Kalu Singh and gave injury report (Ex. P. 1). deposed that he found in all 27 injuries on the person of Kalu Singh. The doctor (PW 1) in his statement recorded on 4.9.86 did not state anything about dying declaration. But, when he was recalled by the trial Court and again examined on 13.5.1987 he (PW 1) deposed that he also recorded dying declaration of Kalusingh (deceased) and deduced in writing which was in original sent to the concerned Magistrate- copy of which was retained by him (PW 1) which was marked as Ex. P-718. The witness (PW 1) produced receipts (Ex. P. 19) (Ex. P. 20).
6. Kanhiyalal (PW 2) is a witness of site plan and seizure memo of blood stained articles. Shyamlal (PW 3) Purshottam (PW 4)are formal witnesses in respect of despatch of sealed articles to Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory. Sobhagh Singh (PW 5) has been produced by the prosecution for the purpose of proving incident as well as dying declaration of the deceased but he did not support the prosecution and was ultimately declared hostile. Similar is the position of Nagsingh (PW 6). Chain Singh (PW 7) has also been produced for the same purpose but he did not support the prosecution too; and simply deposed that he went to
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
