Dying declarations and direct eyewitness accounts provide compelling evidence for murder convictions, even in the presence of minor inconsistencies.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The appellants question the correctness of judgment dated 26.7.1999 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda in S.T. case No.94/3 of 1993- 99 whereby they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. Prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 6.8.1992 at about 9.00 P.M., while the informant Sighasan Yadav was returning home after supplying milk to one Maheswar, the owner of Satya Vijay Hotel, Jharsuguda in his factory, he went to the said hotel near the Station Square to collect money. While he was returning after collecting money, he saw several persons gathered near Prince Hotel. When Rambabu Sahu saw him, he said ‘MARA A MADORCHOOD KU’. Hearing this, accused Bhusan Sahu, Trilok Yadav, Sudarsan Yadav, Muna Yadav and other Ghasia persons, whom he could not identify, chased him. They caught hold of him in front of Tiwari Hotel (Jalpan) and severely assaulted him. Triloknath Yadav assaulted him with a bhujali on his left elbow and left leg causing bleeding injuries and thereafter, they left the spot. When the informant was returning home, he saw Satyendra, a resident of his Pada, coming on Scooter to whom he said that the assailants had assaulted him with bhujali and requested him to give him a lift. Satyendra took him to his home and from there took him to the hospital, where he was treated. The assailants had also shot Srinivas, a resident of his Pada, who was also treated in the hospital. While being treated at Jharsuguda hospital, the informant orally submitted the complaint to the OIC of Jharsuguda P.S., which was reduced to writing. Subsequently, Jharsuguda P.S. Case No.142/1992 was registered under Sections 341/324/326/294 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses including that of the informant and the other injured Srinivas, were recorded. Since the condition of Srinivas subsequently became critical, his dying declaration was also recorded. Soon thereafter, Srinivas succumbed to his injuries. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the present accused persons under Sections 147/148/324/307/302/149 of IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Section 9B of the Indian Explosives Act.

3. The plea of the accused persons was of denial and of false implication.

4. To bring home the charges, prosecution examined twenty witnesses and proved twenty-three documents. Defence did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary.

5. Learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of P.Ws.7 to 12 is material to the case, they being eye- witnesses to the occurrence. As such, their evidence was meticulously analyzed and found to be consistent and in corroboration of each other.

6. The defence arguments with regard to contradictions were brushed aside as inconsequential. The medical evidence was found to corroborate the ocular evidence. As regards the dying declaration, the prosecution projected two statements, one marked Ext-7 being recorded by the treating doctor and the other, Ext-19, the statement recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Though there was some discrepancy in both statements as regards the names of the assailants, the trial Court felt persuaded to accept both as the same was fully consistent with the eye-witnesses’ accounts. On such evidence and findings based thereon, the trial Court held the charges proved against the