BIJOY DAS versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 28-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-f-
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 86 
A 
BIJOY DAS 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2008) 
l 
JANUARY 28, 2008 
~ 
B 
~ 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
I,. r 
Penal Code: 
s. 302 -
Victim suffering fire arm injury - His wife 
c witnessing the incident - Victim disclosing to witnesses and 
doctor the name of accused as his assailant - Statement of 
victim recorded by 1.0. in hospital disclosing accused as the 
assailant - Conviction uls 302 and sentence of imprisonment 
awarded by trial court - Affirmed by High Court - HELD: If a 
D dying declaration is found to be reliable, there is no need for 
Im 
corroboration by any witness and conviction can be sustained 
on its basis alone - There is no reason to doubt veracity of 
,.. 
dying declarations - Trial Court and High Court rightly held 
;..
that accused had fired the shot which resulted in death of victim 
E - Evidence Act, 1872 - Dying declaration. 
...
The appellant was prosecuted u/s 302 IPC and ss.25/ 
......
27 of Arms Act. The prosecution case was that the 
'II 
husband of PW-4 was shot at by the appellant. The victim 
was taken to hospital. The victim disclosed to the doctor, 
F PW-14, as also to PWs 6,8 and 9 that it was the appellant 
"f 
who had shot at him. The Investigating Officer also 
recorded the statement of the victim wherein he named 
the appellant as his assailant. After a few days the victim 
succumbed to his injuries. The trial court relying upon 
G the evidence led by the prosecution, convicted the 
"" 
appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment 
~ 
for life. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the 
sentence. 
It was contended for the appellant that the evidence 
H 
86 
•
-
I 
~-
BIJOY DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
87 
of PW-4 lacked credence and the alleged statements A 
before PWs 6,8,9 and 14 could not be treated as dying 
declarations. 
f?ismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 If a dying declaration is found to be reliable 8 
y· 
then there is no need for corroboration by any witness, 
and conviction can be sustained on its basis alone. There 
is no reason to doubt the veracity of the dying 
declarations especially since there is consistency 
amongst them. There is also no reason why the doctor or c 
the other witnesses should make a false statement about 
the dying declaration. There is no allegation of enmity 
between the accused and these persons. [para 11 and 7] 
(93-G; 90-C] 
1111( 
Muthu Kutty v. State (2005] 9 SCC 113; Narain Singh D 
vs. State of Haryana 2004(2) SCR 115 ; Babula/ v. State of 
.... 
-1 
MP [2003] 12 sec 490; Ravi vs. State of T.N. [2004] 10 sec 
776 - relied on. 
1.2 The evidence of PWs 6,8 and 9 clearly shows that 
the dec~ased immediately prior to his death had disclosed E 
to them that he had suffered injuries at the hands of the 
appellant. Additionally, in the bed-head ticket, PW-14 
categorically noted the statement of the deceased that he 
..... 
had been assaulted by the accused. The evidence of PW-
.,.. 
4 was to the effect that she was waiting for her husband .F 
standing in front of their house. She stated that the 
deceased was coming by a cycle. She also could note 
• 
the appellant following the deceased and firing shot at 
him. When the evidence of PWs 4,6,8 and 9 is analyzed, 
mi"' 
>--
the inevitable conclusion, as was rightly observed by the 
trial court and the High Court, is that the appellant had 
G 
fired the shot which resulted in the death of the deceased. 
[para 12] [93-H; 94-A-C] 
t 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal 
No. 188 of 2008. 
H 
~ t--
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 2 S.C.R. 
"1 
A 
From the final Order and Judgment dated 7.7.2006 of the 
High Court of Calcutta at Calcutta in C.R.A. No. 230/2001. 
Rana Mukherjee, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, lndrani and 
~ 
Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellant. 
B 
Avijit Bhattacharjee for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-. 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, upholding the conviction 
and sentence of the appellant who was found guilty of offence 
punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 
(in short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment 
for life. 
D 
3. Prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows: 
On 28.9.1993, between 6.45 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. Sisir Kr. 
~ 
Das @Ajoy (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was shot 
by the presen

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