The Jharkhand High Court while setting aside a conviction under Section 302 IPC held that the appellants cannot be held guilty only on the basis of the uncorroborated dying declaration of the deceased, coupled with the fact that there is a contradiction in the medical evidence regarding the cause of death.
Brief Facts:
The appellants filed the present appeal against the order of the trial court whereby they were held guilty and convicted of the offences under Sections 302 and 304 IPC.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that here was a contradiction in the statement of the witnesses as to where the fardbeyan of the Informant / deceased was recorded. It was also submitted that the doctor who had treated the Informant / deceased at the first instance has not been examined to show, whether the deceased was in the proper frame of mind to make a dying declaration. It was further submitted that the purported dying declaration of the deceased was contradicted by the findings in the postmortem report and the failure on the part of the prosecution to adduce the inquest request of the deceased in evidence has further caused prejudice to the case of defence.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that all the prosecution witnesses have been consistent in their statement that the Informant / deceased had made a dying declaration that the appellant had shot him by arrow and further submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, this appeal be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The court referred to the oral and documentary evidence. It stated that the deceased died due to the injury he sustained on his stomach which was neither self-inflicting nor accidental and thus concluded that the deceased died a homicidal death.
Further, the court referred to the fard beyan of the deceased, which is also his dying declaration and observed that the deceased in his fardbeyan-cum-dying declaration has not stated anything regarding the presence of the appellant and the accused at the place of occurrence during the time of occurrence.
The court further stated that medical evidence, in this case, is of paramount importance and noted that the findings in the postmortem report are contrary to the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and also the dying declaration of the deceased that he was shot from behind by the arrow which protruded from his stomach. It was stated that the doctor who had examined the deceased during the course of treatment had not been examined and he was the best person to throw light on the nature of the injury which the deceased had sustained for which he was treated at the first instance. The prosecution has not adduced the inquest report in evidence, which would have thrown light on the first-hand opinion of the Investigating Officer regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Non-examination of the I.O. has further caused prejudice to the prosecution case.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction.
Case Title: Goda Singh Sardar and anr. vs State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Ratnaker Bhengra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 46 of 1999 (R)
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
