ANIL PRAKASH SHUKLA AND ORS . versus ARVIND SHUKLA AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1053 · Decided: 01-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ANIL PRAKASH SHUKLA AND ORS . 
A 
.. 
v. 
ARVIND SHUKLA AND ANR. 
MAY I, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
) 
s. 302-Murder-Prosecution case based on alleged dying declaration 
and testimony of sole eye-witness-Enmity between complainant and c 
accused-Victim died several days after incident-Contradictions in testimony 
of sole eye-witness-Dying declaration before Magistrate recorded after victim 
was alleged to have been tutored-Magistrate not examined-Held: High 
Court rightly acquitted the accused 
Evidence: 
D 
Dying declaration-Veracity of-Victim who died after several days of 
incident, told the I. 0. that prior to this statement being recorded before the 
Magistrate, he was tutored by his brother and father-Magistrate not 
examined-Held, High Court rightly disbelieved the dying declaration. 
E 
Eye-witness-Contradictions in statements of the sole eye-witness-
Held, High Court rightly held that after coming to know of medical report, 
witness before trial courts improved his version given in FIR. 
Respondent-accused in both the appeals was on inimical terms with PW-
F 
I, the complainant, and his brother, the deceased. On the day of incident when 
PW-1, and his brother, after taking a round in the market, were returning to 
their house, the accused along with two other persons, appeared there and 
gave one knife blow on the brother of PW-1. Initially, a case under section 
307 IPC was registered against the accused and when the victim died, after 
several days of the incident, the case was converted into one under s. 302 G 
IPC. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW-1, the sole eye-
, 
witness, and the alleged dying declaration of the decea3ed. The trial court 
convicted the accused of the offence charged. On appeal, the High Court 
acquitted him. Aggrieved, the complainant filed Crl. Appeal No. 830 of2002 
1053 
H 
1054 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A and the State filed Crl. Appeal No. 932/2002. 
~. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. As regards the alleged dying declaration, it has been pointed 
out by the High Court that the Magistrate before whom the said dying 
B declaration was said to have been recorded, was not produced as a witness 
before the trial court and hence the accused did not have an opportunity to 
cross-examine the Magistrate. Moreover, the deceased died several days after 
the incident. Deceased stated before the Investigating Officer 20 days after 
r 
the incident that he had been tutored to give an incorrect statement before 
c 
the Magistrate. In the circumstances, the High Court rightly disbelieved the 
dying declaration. [Para 7] [1066-F-G] 
2. With regard to the evidence of PW-1, the sole eye-witness, the High 
Court has pointed Jut that he was not a natural witness as per his own showing 
and he had animosity against the accused. His presence at the scene of 
D occurrence was by a sheer chance. Apart from that, there is inconsistency 
between his version given in the FIR and his statement as PWl before the 
trial court. In the FIR it is only stated that the accused inflicted a knife blow 
on the deceased, but his deposition before the trial court, PW-1 stated that 
the accused inflicted knife blows on the deceased while the other person also 
inflicted knife blow on him. As rightly held by the High Court, the statement 
E of PW-1 in the court is an improvement on the version given in the FIR. 
[Para 9, 10 and 11] (1057-8-F] 
The High Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused. 
[Para 12) 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 
2002. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2002 of the High Court 
of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 1981. 
G 
WITII 
Crl. A. No. 932 of2002. 
{ 
P.N. Mishra, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Girdhar G. 
Upadhyay, Vinita G. Upadhyay, Asha Upadhyay, Sahdev Singh, Fuzail Khan, 
Javed M. Rao and Musharraf Chawdhry for the Appellant. 
-. 
H 
ANILPRAKASHSHUKLA v. ARVINDSHUKLA[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.] 
J 055 
V.I(. Shukla, Anil Pandey and K.K. Mohan for the Respondent. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
...... 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. These two appeals have been filed against 
the impugned judgment dated 1.3.2002 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 482 of 1981. 
B 
2. One of the appeals has been filed by the complainant and the other 
by the State Government. 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.