Point of Law : When the cause of death cannot be attributed to the incident after which the statement was recorded, the statement of the deceased cannot be considered by the Court as a Dying Declaration and is inadmissible in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/Accused No. l is questioning the judgment of the trial Court in SC No.229 of 2014 dated 27.01.2020, finding him guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years, filing the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, P.W.1 filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bejjanki on 26.11.2012 stating that there were disputes regarding landed property with the appellant and the acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3. On the said date, there was an altercation between the deceased, who is the husband of P.W.1 and the appellant. In the evening around 6.00 P.M, the appellant and the acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 entered into the house of P.W.1 and the appellant beat the deceased with the pestle and acquitted A2 and A3 beat P.W.1 with sticks. Having received injuries, the deceased was shifted to the hospital.

3. The case was investigated and charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC against the appellant and two others.

4. Charges under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and Section 324 r/w Section 324 were framed against the accused on 13.11.2017.

5. During the course of P.W.1 statement on 07.06.2019, the Court on coming to know that the husband of P.W.1 died, differed trial and framed charges under Section 302 and Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC against three accused on 27.01.2020.

6. After completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge found A1 to A3 not guilty for the offence under Section 302 and Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. However, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and the other accused were acquitted of all the charges.

7. Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction is based on inadmissible evidence, firstly, the documents relied upon by the Sessions Judge Exs.P2 to P13 were produced by P.W.1. The prosecution examined P.W.12 who according to the prosecution, is the Doctor, who treated the deceased. However, P.W.12 disowned any kind of treatment to the deceased and also denied seeing photographs and other medical record Ex.P4 shown to the witness. P.W.12 further denied the signature shown on Ex.P26, which is the medical certificate of the deceased.

8. On the other hand, Sri Sudarshan, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that since the deceased was treated for a period from 26.11.2012 till his death on 04.04.2013, the documents produced by P.W.1 can be looked into to draw an inference of guilt against the appellant. He further submits that though no appeal is filed against acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3, the evidence placed on record both oral and documentary, are sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 307 IPC and the same cannot be interfered with.

9. The injuries received by the deceased were not narrated by an expert like Doctor and unfortunately, the witness produced by the prosecution P.W.12 turned hostile to the prosecution case and denied having examined and treated the deceased. Further when P.W.12 was confronted with Ex.P4 alleged to be case sheet from 10.12.2012 to 26.01.2013, P.W.12 stated that it is not case sheet but nursing sheet. Ex.P3 is the X-ray requisition, Ex.P4 is the nursing sheet/case sheet, Ex.P5 is the Discharge chard of Ankith Multi Speciality Hospitals, Hyderabad, which documents were not proved through the persons executing those documents. Similarly, the other medical records, Exs.P9 to P13 were also filed by P.w.1 and no witnesses are examined, who signed or executed the said documents.

10. In the absence of any treating Doctor being examined or the persons, who executed Exs.P3 to P5 and P9 to P13, it is not safe to rely upon the said documents to conclude that they pertain to deceased and that the contents therein are correct, as merely marking documents is not proof of the contents of the documents.

11. The Dying Declaration was marked as Ex.P20 in which the deceased narrated the incident and held the appell