IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN, JJ.
Jeet Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 492 of 1989
Decided On : 25-07-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND Dying Declaration - Sections 302/34, 447 IPC - The court analyzed the reliability of two conflicting dying declarations made by the deceased, emphasizing that inconsistencies between them undermined the prosecution's case. The court highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the credibility of witnesses, ultimately concluding that the trial court's reliance on the first dying declaration was unjustified given the contradictions. The court reversed the conviction based on the lack of reliable evidence supporting the prosecution's claims.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the appeal of Jeet Singh against his conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC and criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC, stemming from an incident in 1985 where the deceased, Kalwant Singh, was assaulted by Jeet Singh and others. The deceased made two dying declarations naming different assailants, leading to questions about the reliability of the evidence presented against Jeet Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the two dying declarations were contradictory, with the first naming Jeet Singh and others as assailants, while the second named different individuals. The court determined that the trial court had improperly relied on the first declaration without adequately considering the inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence.
Issues: The primary issues included the reliability of the dying declarations, the credibility of eyewitness testimonies, and whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that when faced with multiple dying declarations, the one recorded by a Magistrate is generally more reliable, especially if inconsistencies exist. The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to support the prosecution's case when contradictions are present in key testimonies.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and Jeet Singh was acquitted of all charges under Sections 302/34 and 447 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, .
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:
2. The matter pertains to an incident occurred in the year 1985 and the present appeal is pending since the year 1989.
3. The accused-appellants laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.12.1989 passed by the learned Session Judge, Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 02/1986 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Jeet Singh & Ors.) whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:
| Offence under Section | Sentence |
| 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment (each of the accused-appellants) |
| 447 IPC | One Month S.I. (each of the accused-appellants) |
4. At the outset, it has been brought to notice of this Court that accused-appellant No. 2-Karnail Singh and accused-appellant No. 3- Dalip Singh since already expired, therefore, the instant appeal qua them already stood abated, as reflected in the orders dated 04.11.2022 and 21.02.2022, respectively. Thus, now the present appeal survived only against accused-appellant No. 1- Jeet Singh, and the arguments were heard only to the extent of the said surviving accused-appellant, and the adjudication in the instant appeal is being made accordingly.
5. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for accused-appellant, are that as per dying declaration of Kalwant Singh (deceased), on 12.09.1985 at around 7:15 a.m., he had gone to get vegetables from his farm. While, he was plucking rice pods for vegetables from his farm, at around 7:15 a.m., Dalip Singh s/o Gopal Singh, Karnail Singh s/o Jeet Singh, and Jeet Singh s/o Sadhu Singh entered the deceased’s farm armed with lathis. Then Karnail Singh dragged the deceased to another field, while putting scarf around the deceased’s neck, and started beating him with lathi; accused-Karnail Singh hit the deceased with lathi and his legs. The reason for such joint assault, was that the deceased misled the relatives of accused-Dalip Singh, which resulted into a dispute between Dalip Singh and his relatives. Thereafter, Naseeb Kaur (PW-3) wife of deceased came there and started shouting, whereupon all the three accused ran away, and the deceased son- Gurjant Singh (PW-1) and his brother- Jogendra Singh (PW-2) also reached at the place of incident, and took the deceased to a hospital.
6. Thereafter, on 12.09.1985, the deceased gave a dying declaration (Ex.P/6) before Baldev Singh (PW-6)-Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Station, Chunawat wherein he stated the whole story at Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 343, 365, 323 & 447 IPC and the investigation accordingly commenced.
7. Subsequently, on 16.09.1985 another dying declaration was recorded in the presence of Magistrate Shri Krishna Joshi (DW.1) which is the Ex.D/10 wherein deceased-Kalwant Singh stated that the entire incident had happened at the instance of Mohan Das, Narayan Das and Har Govind but they had not been prosecuted. Subsequently, the deceased-Kalwant Singh was transferred to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, and during the investigation, on 22.09.1985 Kalwant Singh died under treatment; the death was opined to have been caused due to the injuries inflicted by the accused-appellants.
8. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellants and trial accordingly commenced wherein the accused were prosecuted under Sections 364, 302/34 and 447 IPC.
9. During the course of trial, the evidence of 12 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 43-A
Anmol Singh Vs. State of M.P. (2008) 5 SCC 468
Jagbir Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna vs. State of Gujarat
Kamla Vs. State of Punjab (1993) 1 SCC 1
In cases involving multiple dying declarations, inconsistencies must be critically examined, and the declaration recorded by a Magistrate is typically given more weight, particularly when the reliabi....
The reliability and consistency of dying declarations are crucial in criminal cases, especially when multiple contradictory declarations are present.
Dying declarations may serve as the sole basis for conviction if deemed voluntary, consistent, and credible; inconsistencies must be assessed in light of surrounding facts.
Dying declarations must be coherent and trustworthy, free from influence to be valid for conviction; inconsistencies lead to benefit of doubt.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in relying on dying declarations, the importance of corroborative evidence, and the entitlement of the accused to the benef....
Inconsistent dying declarations cannot suffice for conviction without corroborating evidence, especially when procedural guidelines for a fair trial are not met.
A conviction based on inconsistent dying declarations is unsafe without corroborative evidence; discrepancies create reasonable doubt undermining the prosecution's case.
Dying declarations must be consistent and reliable, as they can form the sole basis for conviction only if they inspire full confidence and are free from inconsistencies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.