1998 JTR(SC) 457
1998 2 AICLR 694 ; 1998 AIR(SC) 2912 ; 1998 AIR(SCW) 2291 ; 1998 37 AllCriC 126 ; 1998 2 CCR(SC) 250 ; 1998 CriLR 396 ; 1998 2 Crimes(SC) 276 ; 1998 3 JT 582 ; 1998 3 Scale 327 ; 1998 9 SCC 654 ; 1998 SCC(Cri) 1338 ; 1998 KHC 1318 ; 1998 4 Supreme 285
1998(4) Supreme 285
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
G.T. Nanavati and S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.
Mohar Singh etc. -Appellants
versus
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 623 of 1991
With
Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 1991
Decided on 16-4-98
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in Crl.A.No. 623/91 : Pallav Shishodia and A.P. Medh, Advocates.
For the Appellant in Crl.A. No. 624/91 : K.S. Bhati, Advocate.
For the Respondent in Crl.A. No. 623/91 : Rajendra Singhvi and Surya Kant, Advocates.
For the Respondent in Crl.A. No. : 624/91 : Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Advocate (NP).
Important Point
High Court has given good reasons for not relying an evidence of P.W. 1 and on the dying declaration of deceased and thus the order of acquittal passed by the High Court does not call for any interference.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.32
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.300
(A) The Indian Penal Code provisions governing murder and the evidentiary value of dying declarations are central to this appeal, read alongside the Evidence Act provisions on witness reliability. The assessment of whether a dying declaration is voluntary and reliable, and the evaluation of witness testimony against the standards of contemporaneous opportunity and identification, are interpreted through Sections 302, 300, and 32 of the Indian Penal Code and Evidence Act respectively, within the framework of criminal appeals against acquittal.
(B) Key principles include the necessity for reliable identification evidence in criminal convictions, the susceptibility of dying declarations to scrutiny based on the victim's physical condition, and the high threshold required to interfere with an order of acquittal.
(C)
Facts of the case:
The respondents were convicted for the murder of Duni Ram, primarily based on the testimony of an eye-witness and a dying declaration. The eye-witness identified the respondents as 'Bhanbhus' after the incident, and the dying declaration was reported by the wife. (D)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the eye-witness unreliable due to poor visibility and failure to identify specific assailants, and found the dying declaration unreliable given the victim's injuries and consciousness. (E)
Issues:
Whether the conviction can be sustained on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identification and an invalid dying declaration. (F)
Ratio Decidendi:
In the absence of reliable direct identification and credible corroboration, the benefit of doubt must extend to the accused, necessitating acquittal. (G)
Result:
The appeals are dismissed and the acquittal is upheld.
(A) The Indian Penal Code provisions governing murder and the evidentiary value of dying declarations are central to this appeal, read alongside the Evidence Act provisions on witness reliability. The assessment of whether a dying declaration is voluntary and reliable, and the evaluation of witness testimony against the standards of contemporaneous opportunity and identification, are interpreted through Sections 302, 300, and 32 of the Indian Penal Code and Evidence Act respectively, within the framework of criminal appeals against acquittal.
(B) Key principles include the necessity for reliable identification evidence in criminal convictions, the susceptibility of dying declarations to scrutiny based on the victim's physical condition, and the high threshold required to interfere with an order of acquittal.
(C)
Facts of the case:
The respondents were convicted for the murder of Duni Ram, primarily based on the testimony of an eye-witness and a dying declaration. The eye-witness identified the respondents as 'Bhanbhus' after the incident, and the dying declaration was reported by the wife. (D)
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the eye-witness unreliable due to poor visibility and failure to identify specific assailants, and found the dying declaration unreliable given the victim's injuries and consciousness. (E)
Issues:
Whether the conviction can be sustained on the basis of unreliable eyewitness identification and an invalid dying declaration. (F)
Ratio Decidendi:
In the absence of reliable direct identification and credible corroboration, the benefit of doubt must extend to the accused, necessitating acquittal. (G)
Result:
The appeals are dismissed and the acquittal is upheld.
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-Both these appeals are filed against the judgment and order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in DB (Crl.) Appeal No. 12/89. Criminal Appeal No. 623/91 is filed by the brother of the deceased and Criminal Appeal No. 624/91 is filed by the State.
2. Respondents - Ranveer, Bhadar Ram, Chet Ram, Het Ram, Mohan Singh and Om Prakash were convicted by the trial Court for the murder of Duni Ram. The conviction was based mainly upon the evidence of the eye-witness - P.W. 1 - Mohar Singh, brother of the deceased. The other evidence relied upon by the prosecution was of corroborative nature. The trial Court also relied upon the dying declaration stated to have been made by the deceased before his wife - P.W. 7 - Gomti.
3. The High Court on reappreciation of evidence found that the evidence of P.W. 1 was not reliable as regards the identity of the accused. The High Court was pointed out that P.W. 1 immediately on his return to the village, after the incident had happened, had stated to his mother and sister-in-law that Duni Ram was beaten by ‘Bhanbhus’. It may be stated that ‘Bhanbhu’ is a sub-caste of Jats. As P.W. 1 had not given names of the assailants but described them as ‘Bhanbhus’, the High Court held that in all probability. P.W. 1 had not identified the assailants of Duni Ram. Another reason given by the High Court for doubting the version of P.W. 1 is that the incident had taken place at about 8.30 p.m.. It was a dark night. The reasons given by the High Court appear to be correct. P.W. 1 has also submitted that he could see the assailants only when they were at a distance of about 10 paces. Admittedly, the assault took place about 30 to 40 paces away from where he was standing and therefore he stated that he could not state whether any of the blows given to Duni Ram had caused an injury. That would indicate that it was quite dark at that time and the witness was not able to recognise the assailants and therefore after reaching the village, he merely described the assailants at ‘Bhanbhus’. The High Court has also pointed out that no reliance could be placed on the FIR which contains the names of the assailants because P.W. 1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the FIR was taken down after the Inspector visited the site and they were then taken to the police station.
4. As regards the dying declaration stated to have been made by the deceased to his wife, it appears that the deceased could not have made such a dying declaration in view of the number of injuries received by him. The evidence of Gomti-P.W. 7 is that when she reached the place of incident, her husband-Duni Ram was in a position to speak and when she enquired, he gave the names of the assailants. However, she admitted that immediately after saying so, her husband had became unconscious. No other witness has spoken about this dying declaration. The High Court was therefore right in not placing reliance upon the dying declaration.
5. As there was no other evidence, the High Court was right in acquitting the accused. The order of acquittal passed by the High Court does not call for any interference.
6. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
(N.K.) Appeal dismissed.
**********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Mohar Singh v. The State of Rajasthan, 1998(4) Supreme 285 : JT 1998(3) SC 582 : 1998(3) Scale 327 : 1998(IV) AD (SC) 333 : 1998 SCC (Cri.) 1338 : 1998(2) Crimes 276
00031