Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 116
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
S.K. Gangele, Anjuli Palo, JJ.
Shrawan S/o Prahlad – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Cr.A. No.2113 of 2006
Decided On : 15-01-2018
For the Appellant : Shri. S.K. Gangrade, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Singh, learned GA
Reliability of dying declarations and the credibility of child witnesses in establishing guilt.
Headnote:
Section 302 - Conviction based on dying declarations - Indian Penal Code, Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Suggabai based on multiple dying declarations and corroborative evidence. The appellant denied guilt, claiming false implication due to old enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the dying declarations of the deceased to be reliable and corroborated by other evidence, leading to the conviction of the appellant for murder.
Issues: Reliability of dying declarations, credibility of child witnesses, corroboration of evidence, and the appellant's involvement in the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles that dying declarations can be the sole basis of conviction if found reliable, and the credibility of child witnesses can be established based on their competence and understanding of the events.
Final Decision: The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, affirming the findings of the trial court.
Anjuli Palo, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.9.2006, passed by Special Judge, Betul, in Special Case No.97/2005, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for life.
2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 22.4.2005 at village Asari, Police Station Chicholi. Suggabai (since deceased) was alone in her house. Her niece Jyoti (PW1) was playing with the children of Suggabai outside of the house. They saw the appellant came to the house of Suggabai and caused fatal blows to her by means of knife. To save herself, Suggabai ran away towards the neighbour's house. She sustained several injuries. On the information of the incident, police came to the residence of Duklu Aadiwasi (neighbour of deceased). On the oral report of Suggabai, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P7) lodged against the appellant under Sections 449 and 307 of IPC and section 3(1)(II) and 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Suggabai was brought to the hospital for treatment. Her statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and dying declarations under Section 32 of IPC have been recorded by the Competent Authorities. She died on 24.4.2005. Hence merg intimation was registered on the report of Ward Boy Surenderlal. The offence was converted into Section 302 of IPC. After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court.
3. After committal of the case, trial was conducted by the trial Court. Charges have been framed under Section 449 302 and 354 of IPC read with Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellant. The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to old enmity with the deceased. After considering the entire prosecution evidence, learned trial Court held the appellant guilty for committing the murder of deceased-Suggabai. He has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
4. The above findings and sentence have been challenged by the appellant on the grounds that the learned trial Court has wrongly relied on the evidence of Child witnesses Ku. Jyoti (PW1) and Ritesh (PW2), infact they are not the eye witnesses. The police registered a false criminal case against the appellant and he has wrongly been convicted by the learned trial court. Since the dying declarations of the deceased were not reliable, the findings of the learned trial Court are illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence, hence deserve to be set aside.
5. Learned Govt. Advocate has vehemently opposed the submissions of the appellant and contended that the learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for committing the aforesaid offences.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. The point for consideration is that -whether the appellant has wrongly been convicted under Section 302 of IPC ?
8. The case is mainly based on various dying declarations of the deceased. The first dying declaration Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P7) registered by Sub. Inspector D.P. Mahore (PW12) is considered as dying declaration. He deposed that at the time of lodging of Dehati Nalisi by him, Suggabai was mentally conscious and capable of giving the statement. Dehati Nalisi is registered by him as per the statement given by Suggabai. In the cross-examination, his testimony is found unrebutted. In Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P7), Suggabai has clearly stated that the appellant came to her house at about 2.20 pm on the day of incident. She did not like him, hence she objected on which the appellant threw her on the cot. When she opposed, the appellant inflicted several blows by knife on her back and abdomen. He also threatened Suggabai to kill her. She somehow reached the house of Duklu Adiwasi. She had narrated the whole incident to Duklu and her wife Mesobai. Such statement is a
