IMPORTANT POINT
The admissibility and reliability of dying declarations as substantive evidence in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.

(Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records from the lower Court relating to S.C.No.640 of 2015, on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, and set aside the judgment dated 05.03.2020, by acquitting the appellants.)

1. This Appeal is preferred by the appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, in S.C.No.640 of 2015, dated 05.03.2020.

2. The first appellant /A1 tried for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 of I.P.C. The second appellant /A2 tried for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 read with Section 109 of I.P.C.

3. The gist of the charges against them was that, on 02.08.2015, at about 11.30 p.m., the appellants / A1 and A2 went to the house of the deceased Jeevankumar, abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences, for not withdrawing the complaint given on 05.01.2015 against them in Crime No.7 of 2015. For using filthy language in the public, both the appellants 1 and 2 alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. In furtherance of the said transaction, the second appellant / A2, hit Jeevankumar on the left shoulder with stick and to facilitate the first appellant / A1 to stab Jeevankumar on his abdomen, caught hold of the hands of Jeevankumar and aided the first appellant / A1 to commit the offence of murder. In continuation of the said offence, the first appellant / A1 took out a knife concealed in his hip and stabbed Jeevankumar on his abdomen saying that, ''How many times I have to tell you to withdraw the complaint, but you are not heeding. I will not leave you alive''. The injured Jeevankumar was taken to Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital. After six days of treatment as Inpatient, Jeevankumar succumbed to the injury on 06.08.2015 at 07.00 p.m. Thus, for intentionally causing the death of Jeevankumar, which is punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the first appellant / A1 and charge under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C. was framed against the second appellant / A2.

4. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, marked 18 exhibits and two material objects.

5. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence, held that as far as the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. in respect of the first accused and Section 302 read with Section 109 of I.P.C. in respect of the second accused, the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Insofar as the charge for the offence under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. is concerned, the trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, acquitted the appellants. For the proven charge, namely, under Section 302 I.P.C. as against the first accused, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment. In respect of the second accused, for the proven charge, namely, under Section 302 read with Section 109 of I.P.C., the trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment.

6. Being aggrieved, both the accused have preferred the present appeal.

7. The appeal is filed based on the ground that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and the motive for causing murder of Jeevankumar as projected by the prosecution, not been spoken by the witnesses. The earliest document in this case, namely, the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.1, dated 03.08.2015, is supposed to be given by the deceased himself and the same does not lend credence to the case of the prosecution. The ocular evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 specifically states that only a single stab injury in the abdomen of the deceased was caused by the first accused. However