Dying declarations can alone sustain a conviction if deemed reliable and made in a fit state of mind, without corroborative evidence being strictly necessary.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 29.09.2003 and the order of sentence dated 30.09.2003 in Sessions Trial Case No. 45 of 2000 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge IV, Bokaro convicted the appellant under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the case is solely based on the dying declaration of the deceased. As per the learned counsel if the dying declaration is disbelieved, there remains no material to implicate this appellant in this case. As per her, the deceased was not in a position to give the dying declaration and if there is any doubt about the veracity of the dying declaration, conviction cannot be sustained. It would not be proper to convict the appellant solely on the basis of the dying declaration without corroboration. Admittedly there is no other corroborative evidence thus this appeal needs to be allowed.

3. The learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submitted that the dying declaration cannot be doubted. The evidence of the witnesses clearly suggests that the deceased was in a position to give a dying declaration. She also submitted that it is well settled that solely on the basis of the dying declaration conviction can also be sustained. As per the evidence of the doctor and the other witnesses the deceased was in a fit state of mind while giving the declaration. Thus this appeal be dismissed.

4. The story of the prosecution is on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Shankar Gorain. On 14.02.1998 at about 6:30 PM the informant was in his house along with his family members when Suraj Kumar Ram of Jhopri Colony came to his house and called Mahesh Gorain the brother of the informant and Mahesh Gorain went with Suraj Kumar Ram. At about 7:00-7:30 PM a person from LH came and informed that Mahesh Gorain was lying in an injured condition at LH and he should be taken to hospital for treatment. The informant along with his another brother Kashi Nath Gorain went there by hiring a Tempo and saw his brother Mahesh Gorain lying in an injured condition, who was conscious and asked the informant to take him to the hospital for treatment. On being asked, Mahesh Gorain told that Madhu Topno and Rajendra Khatik had assaulted him with knife and Suraj Kumar Ram had call him from his house. On the way to hospital he repeated the aforesaid names. During course of treatment Mahesh Gorain died on the same day. On the basis of his fardbeyan , FIR was registered being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 57 of 1998 under sections 302/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 /34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

6. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Sections 364 , 302, 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and trial proceeded.

7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are:-

i. PW1 :- Ram Balak Pathak

ii. PW2 :- Saryug Ram

iii. PW3 :- Sukanya Devi

iv. PW4 :- Sashi Bhushan Singh

v. PW5 :- Mahesh Singh

vi. PW6:- Deo