SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik, R.P. Sethi and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1998, D/d. 6.4.2000.

Laljit Singh and others - Appellants

Versus

State of U.P. - Respondent

A. Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32 - Dying declaration - Deceased received serious injuries - Rushed to the police station - Gave a report under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code - Died next day - Not expected from the deceased at that stage to give a detailed report.

[Para 5]

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 300 and 34 - Murder conviction and sentence - Accused convicts indiscriminately fired gun shots and gave lathi blows - 3 persons died at the spot and 4th the next day - Statements of eye witness - Certain omission in the statement given before the police - Omissions not amounting to contradiction - No legal infirmity in orders of conviction and sentence.

[Paras 5 and 6]

JUDGMENT

The Three appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Their sentence and conviction has been upheld in appeal by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court. The prosecution case in nutshell is that these appellants along with the deceased Chhotey Singh arrived at the scene of occurrence where the prosecution party was going on with the construction of "chhapara" with a labourer, namely, Shri Ram Teli. It was alleged that the said labourer was originally working under the accused persons and accused persons got infuriated when the prosecution party took the assistance of the said labourer. Arriving at the seen of occurrence with rifles, guns and lathis in their hands, the accused persons started indiscriminately firing and assaulting on account of which four persons belonging to the prosecution party died. Accused Chhotey Singh who was also along with the appellants sustained injuries and died.

Out of the four persons who died from the prosecution party three died at the spot, but one of them being severely injured rushed to the police station and gave a report who was examined under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and taken to the hospital and thereafter he died the next day in the hospital.

2. On the basis of the aforesaid information received from the deceased Jaswant Singh, police registered a case and started investigation and, on completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet and the accused persons stood their trial. On the basis of medical evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judges came to the conclusion that the four of the members of the prosecution party died on sustaining ante mortem injuries on their persons which they received from the rifles and guns as well as lathi blows, that the death of these persons is homicidal was not in challenge in any forum as well as before us. Jaswant Singh's statement made to the police was treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. The said statement read with the evidence of the sole eye witnesses - Smt. Krishna (PW1) has formed the basis of conviction in this case.

3. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the aforesaid two pieces of materials, came to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and as such convicted the appellants of the charge under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code. On appeal the High Court also reappreciated the evidence and did not find anything in the cross-examination of Smt. Krishna (PW1) so as to discard her evidence. The High Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants is well merited and does not require any interference.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants raised two contentions before us in assailing the conviction and sentence - (i) the injuries on accused Chhotey Singh not having been explained by the prosecution, the entire prosecution case must be thrown out on the ground that the manner in which the prosecution witness indicated that incident occurred is not the true and correct version, and (ii) in view of the inconsistencies between the so called dying declaration of deceased Jaswant Singh and the evidence of Smt. Krishna (PW1) and further in view of the material omissions in the statement of Smt. Krishna in her statement recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the evidence cannot be held to be a reliable one and, therefore, the Court committed error in convicting the appellants relying upon the same.

5. In order to appreciate the correctness of the contentions raised, we have been taken through the Statement of Jaswant Singh which has been treated to be the dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act as well as the evidence of PW1, Smt. Krishna, who has given a vivid account as to how the occurrence took place. In the dying declaration Jaswant Singh has given a brief sketch as to how the accused persons arrived at the scene of occurrence and started assaulting the prosecution party. It is not expected at that stage to give a detailed account particularly when the person concerned himself was severely injured and, in fact, died on the next day in the hospital on account of such injuries on his person. Coming to the evidence, of PW1, it is no doubt, true that there has been certain omissions in her earlier statement given to the police, but those omissions cannot be held to be material omissions amounting to contradiction so as to impeach her version in any manner. On going through the evidence of said Smt. Krishna PW1, we see no reason to take a different conclusion than the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court in accepting her version and coming to the conclusion that the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the argument that the injuries on Chhotey Singh not having been explained, it appears that Smt. Krishna herself in her evidence has indicated that some lathi blows had been given by the prosecution party which possibly explains the injury on deceased Chhotey Singh belonging to the accused party.

6. In the aforesaid premises, we see no legal infirmity with the impugned conviction and sentence requiring our interference. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.