LexABRAR versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1217 A BRAR v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 1668 of 2005) DECEMBER 16, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] A 8 Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Conviction under - Victim chased by accused and three others armed with weapons - C Accused firing shot at victim from the back - Death of victim - Recording of three dying declarations - Acquittal by trial court on account of discrepancies in the dying declarations and eye-witnesses turning hostile - High Court upholding acquittal of others, however, convicting accused u/s.302 - On D appeal, held: All three dying declarations, one which formed the basis of FIR, second recorded by Sub-Inspector as a statement uls. 161 Cr.P.C. and third recorded by Tahsildar, unanimous - Minor discrepancies in the dying declarations not relevant - Tahsildar recor<jed the dying declarations after E the doctor certified that victim was fit to make statement - Thus, dying declarations were reliable - Motive established between the parties - FIR was lodged promptly - FIR - Evidence - Dying declaration - Criminal law - Motive - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. F According to the prosecution case, the parties were on inimical terms. On the fateful day, at about 9.30 p.m.) four accused armed with weapons chased advocate 'A'. They shouted at each other that 'A' should be killed. The appellant fired at 'A' from the rear. On hearing the shouts, G PW 6 aQd PW 7 reached the place of incident and witnesse<i the incident. 'A' was rushed to the hospital. PW 8-doctor attended 'A'. PW 5, junior of 'A' reached the hospital and 'A' dictated the report to his junior and 1217 H 1218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A signed it. FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC. PW 9-Sub-lnspector as also PW 2-Tahsildar recorded the statement of 'A'. 'A' died the next day and the case was converted into one under Section 302 IPC. The accused were tried for an offence punishable u/s. 302/34 IPC. The B trial court acquitted the accused since the two eye witnesses had turned hostile and there were several discrepancies in the three statements. The High Court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s.302 IPC and upheld the acquittal of the other accused giving them c benefit of doubt. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The entire prosecution story would D depend on the dying declarations. It must be borne in mind that all three dying declarations, the first one which formed the basis of the FIR, the second recorded by the ASI as a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and a third recorded by the E Tahsildar are unanimous, as all the accused were mentioned therein. The High Court by way of abundant caution, already gave the benefit to three of the assailants on the plea, that tt.y, though armed, did not cause any injury to the de eased. The motive too was also F established as t ere appeared to be deep animosity between the parties and that the appellant had, in fact, appeared as a witness in several cases in which the victim 'A' or his son were the accused. There are some discrepancies in the dying declarations with regard to the G presence or otherwise of a light or a torch. However, these are insignificant. It is also clear from the evidence that the injured had been in great pain and if there were minor discrepancies inter-se the three dying declarations, they were to be accepted as something normal. The trial court was, thus, clearly wrong in rendering a judgment H .. ABRAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 1219 of acquittal solely on the said ground. The dying A declarations were recorded by the Tahsildar after the doctor had certified the victim as fit to make a statement. The doctor also appeared in the witness box to support the statement of the Tahsildar. Therefore, no fault whatsoever, could be found in the dying declarations. s [Para 6] [1223-D-H; 1224-A-B] 1.2 The prompt lodging of the FIR is another circumstance in favour of the prosecution. The incident happened at 9.30 p.m. on 03.04.1979 and the FIR was recorded· at 10.30 p.m. i.e. within an hour of the incident C under Section 307 IPC. [Para 7] [1224-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1668 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 29.07.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at All
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.