The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for caution in considering the weight of a dying declaration, the need for corroboration from independent witnesses, and the admissibility of confession statements made to the police.

JUDGMENT :

SUNEET KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Ms. Mridul Tripathi, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the lower court record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18 November 2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 7, Shahjahanpur, in Session Trial No. 526 of 2004, along with Session Trial No. 527 of 2004, arising out of Crime No. 283 of 2003 connected with Crime No. 287 of 2003, P.S. Kanth, District Shahjahanpur, whereby, convicting the appellant no. 2 Ram Kishore under Section 302 IPC and further convicting the appellant no. 1 Ram Bhajan and appellant no. 3 Udai Veer under Section 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, further convicting the appellant no. 1 Ram Bhajan under Section 25/27 of Arms Act and sentencing him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In case of the default of payment, the appellant will have to undergo further 1 month simple imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case setup in the FIR is that on 5 November 2003, Mool Shankar son of the complainant (PW-3) had gone to Kanntha town to get the quilt stuffed. The complainant had gone to the market, where he was informed by Jagdish and Pratap, residents of his village, that his son Mool Shankar (deceased) was caught by accused Rambhajan and Udayveer at about 2 PM on Kurriya Road and their brother Ramkishore shot his son in the stomach with a country-made pistol. The injured Mool Shankar was taken to the Shahjahanpur Hospital on a tempo by some persons. It is further stated that complainant reached the Government Hospital and found his son admitted. It is further alleged that injured Mool Shankar told the complainant that accused Ramkishore shot with a country-made pistol in his stomach while accused Udayveer and Rambhajan caught him. It was further alleged that 5-6 months earlier a case under Section 307 IPC was lodged by accused Rambhajan against the son of the complainant and Tej Ram. It is due to this enmity the accused have committed the crime. Mool Shankar (deceased) succumbed to the injury in the hospital during treatment on 8 November 2003.

4. A report came to be lodged and registered on the written complaint of the informant on 9 November 2003. The Investigating Officer (IO) recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared the site plan on the pointing out of the complainant. Postmortem on the dead-body of the deceased was conducted on the same day at 3:30 PM. On the arrest of accused Rambhajan, the country-made pistol of 315 bore, empty cartridge and one live cartridge was recovered on the disclosure made by the accused on 15 November 2003. Recovery memo was prepared on the spot. On the basis of recovery memo, Case Crime No. 287 of 2003 was registered against accused Rambhajan under Section 25/27 of Arms Act.

5. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan after investigating the spot. The blood stained clothes of the deceased, the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased and the country-made pistol, the empty cartridge and one live cartridge recovered on pointing of accused Rambhajan was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘FSL’) for chemical examination. The charge-sheet under Section 302 IPC came to be filed against all the accused persons, whereas, charge-sheet under Section 25/27 Arms Act was filed against accused Rambhajan.

6. Upon committal of both the cases Sessions court framed charges against the accused Ramkishore, Rambhajan and others under Section 302, read with, Section 34 IPC. The Sessions court framed charges against Rambhajan under Section 25/27 Arms Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

7. In support of the charge prosecution examined the foll