Deciding Authority: Supreme Court
Briefly, the facts of the given case are which led to this appeal are:
On 17/7/1994, at around 9:00 a.m, the deceased, Sakat Ali was found lying at the roadside injured. Seeing him in this condition, the crowd gathered around him when Sakat informed that the reason for his condition was assault by the group of accused, one of which was Asiquddin. His wife and family unable to find him conveyance to hospital, he died and succumbed to his injuries two hours later.While he was on the road, his father-in-law went to the police station wherein an āezaharā was recorded. After the injured died, an FIR was lodged on 18.7.1994. After the criminal law was set in motion, the accused were arrested, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post mortem, statements of nine witnesses were recorded under Section 161Ā of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, eventually, after completing the investigation, the charge- sheet was placed before the competent Court under Section 302/304Ā of the IPC against the accused persons.
Judgment of Trial Court:
The trial courtĀ considering the entire evidence, placing reliance on the oral dying declaration of the deceased and taking note of the weapon used and the nature of the injury caused, came to hold that the prosecution had been able to substantiate the charge beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, convicted them and imposed the sentence.
Judgment of High Court:
In appeal, the High Court took note of the fact that there was no direct evidence to implicate the accused and the minor omissions or contradictions and discrepancies which had been highlighted by the defence did not create any kind of dent in the prosecution version; that ample explanation had been offered by the prosecution for not getting the dying declaration recorded as the deceased was lying on the road side and could not be taken to a hospital; and that there was no reason to disbelieve the oral dying declaration, and the same being absolutely credible, the judgment and conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge did not warrant any interference.
Judgment of Supreme Court:
The court stated:
The wife, the father-in-law and the two other relatives have clearly stated that the deceased had informed them about the names of the assailants. Nothing worth has been elicited in the cross-examination. They have deposed in a categorical manner that by the time they arrived at the place of occurrence, the deceased was in a fit state of health to speak and make a statement and, in fact, he did make a statement as to who assaulted him. Nothing has been suggested to these witnesses about the condition of the deceased. As has been mentioned earlier, PW-4, the doctor, who had performed the post mortem, has not been cross- examined. In this backdrop, it can safely be concluded that the deceased was in a conscious state and in a position to speak. Thus, it is difficult to accept that the wife, the father-in-law and other close relatives would implicate the accused-appellants by attributing the oral dying declaration to the deceased. That apart, in the absence of any real discrepancy or material contradiction or omission and additionally non cross-examination of the doctor in this regard makes the dying declaration absolutely credible and the conviction based on the same really cannot be faulted.
Having said that the discrepancies which have been brought out are not material, we may address to the issue of delay in lodging of the F.I.R. It is perceptible from the evidence that the father-in-law of the deceased had gone to the police station and lodged the ezahar and, thereafter, an FIR was lodged. The learned trial Judge has analysed the said aspect in an extremely careful and cautious manner and on a closer scrutiny, we find that the analysis made by him is impeccable.
Decision:
The appeal of the accused was dismissed and the decree passed by both High Court and Trial Court was upheld.