Back
High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT, D. M. PATHAK
MALIK RAM BHOI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 18 Of 1988
Decided On : 10/26/1992
MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - DYING DECLARATION - ADMISSIBILITY - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - DELAY IN EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - NON-MENTION OF ACCUSED'S NAME IN STATION DIARY ENTRIES - SINGLE BLOW WITH A KNIFE - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for stabbing the deceased with a knife during a family quarrel. The deceased had intervened in a quarrel between the accused and his wife, and was stabbed by the accused while returning home. The accused claimed false implication and enmity with the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction, relying on the dying declaration of the deceased, the testimony of eyewitnesses, and the medical evidence. The court found that the dying declaration was admissible as it was made in a solemn and truthful manner, and that the identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses was reliable. The court also held that the delay in examining the witnesses was not unreasonable, and that the non-mention of the accused's name in the station diary entries did not render the prosecution version unreliable. The court further held that the single blow with a knife was sufficient to constitute murder under Section 302 IPC, considering the nature of the injury and the vital part of the body where it was caused.
Issues: 1. Whether the dying declaration was admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses was reliable. 3. Whether the delay in examining the witnesses was unreasonable. 4. Whether the non-mention of the accused's name in the station diary entries rendered the prosecution version unreliable. 5. Whether a single blow with a knife was sufficient to constitute murder under Section 302 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A dying declaration is admissible in evidence on the principle of necessity, as it is made in a solemn and truthful manner when the declarant is in imminent danger of death. 2. The identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses was reliable, as they were known to the accused and the incident occurred in moonlight. 3. The delay in examining the witnesses was not unreasonable, as they were busy trying to save the deceased's life. 4. The non-mention of the accused's name in the station diary entries did not render the prosecution version unreliable, as it was a minor omission. 5. A single blow with a knife can constitute murder under Section 302 IPC, if it is delivered with the intention of causing death or causing bodily injury sufficient to cause death, and if it results in the death of the victim.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused were upheld.
PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) THE judgment of conviction under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'ipc') and sentence of imprisonment for life passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur is assailed by Malik Ram Bhoi (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused' ).
( 2 ) SANS unnecessary details, the accusations which led to the trial of the accused are as follows : one Bipin Bihari Pradhan (hereinafter described as the 'deceased') lost his life for intervention in a family quarrel. Khenjad Khadia (P. W. 6) and his wife were quarrelling inside their house. The deceased who is brother of one Jagadish Pradhan, the informant (P. W. 5) went to the house of P. W. 6 and requested him and his wife not to quarrel with each other. The differences between them subsided, and while the deceased was coming back the accused came running and challenged the deceased as to why he had come there. Suddenly he gave a knife blow on the lower abdomen and receiving the injury the deceased ran on the village road. After running a few yards he fell down near a tube well. He was shouting that the accused had stabbed him with a knife. Near that tube well, Upendra Chandra Badhei (P. W. 1), Hrudananda Majhi (P. W. 3) and Nabakishore Pradhan (P. W. 4) were sitting and they came near the deceased and asked as to what had happened. The deceased disclosed that he was stabbed by the accused. P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 noticed that the deceased was seriously injured and therefore, he was taken to the Orient Colliery Regional Hospital, Brajrajnagar. P. W. 5 was informed about the occurrence. P. Ws. 1, 3, 4 and 5 accompanied the deceased to the hospital. Coming to know that the deceased sustained a stab injury, the Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of the Orient Colliery Out Post made a station diary entry and sent a message to Brajrajnagar Police Station. On receipt of the message another station diary entry was made. The Sub-Inspector in-Charge of the Out Post came to the hospital where an oral report was made by P. W. 5. The Medical Officer of the hospital was requested to record the dying declaration of the deceased. Accordingly the doctor (P. W. 8) recorded the dying declaration in the presence of Parsuram Saha (P. W. 12) and others. The dying declaration has been marked as Ext. 9. Subsequently the deceased succumbed. Investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted.
( 3 ) THE accused took a plea of false implication. He took a positive stand that the case has been falsely foisted against him on account of previous enmity.
( 4 ) IN order to further its case 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P. W. 6 is an eye witness to the occurrence. In addition to the evidence of P. W. 6, the dying declaration made before several witnesses and the recorded dying declaration in terms of Ext. 9 were considered to be sufficient by the learned trial Judge to fasten guilt on the accused. Accordingly, he was convicted under S. 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the accused has urged that the evidence of P. W. 6 is not acceptable because he could not have seen the occurrence from a distance of about 30 cubits in a moonlight, as deposed by him. Evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 was not recorded immediately and therefore, grave doubt arises about authenticity of the same. The post mortem report indicated that the deceased was intoxicated and there was previous enmity between the deceased and the accused. The dying declaration should not have been relied upon because the same was recorded after about two hours of the assault. The certificate of the doctor that the deceased was in a fit condition to give the statement is hardly acceptable. In the station diary entry the name of the accused has not been indicated though it was recorded after a considerable length of time and that is a suspicious circumstance. In addition it is submitted that the only single blow was given whi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
