MUNNAWAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. ETC.

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 1202 · Decided: 05-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 1202 
MUNNAWAR AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. ETC. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1680-1682 of 2007) 
MAY 5, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 3021149 - Fire shot at victim -
Death of victim after 5 days - Dying declaration recorded by 
C magistrate duly endorsed by doctor- Trial court convicted the 
accused u/s.307 but acquitted them u/s.302 on the ground 
that it was negligence on the part of doctor which led to 
septicemia and finally the death of victim - However, High 
Court convicted accused u/s. 3021149 -
On appeal, held: 
o Injuries on the person of victim were grievous and sufficient 
to cause death as they were on sensitive parts of the body -
Promptness in recording of FIR would belie the doubt as to 
the presence of eyewitness-informant at the place of incident 
- There were no suspicious circumstances with regard to the 
E 
dying declaration and no reasons spelt out as to why the two 
officers (magistrate and doctor) would falsely implicate· 
accused - Order of conviction not interfered with. 
Prosecution case was that the deceased, alongwith 
PW-1 and PW-2 was on way to court to attend a case. 
F 
Appellants anned with a pistol fired a shot at the deceased 
and thereafter ran away from the spot: The incident took 
place at 11.15 A.M. The deceased was seriously injured 
and was taken to hospital and examined by the Doctor . 
PW-4 at 11.35 A.M. FIR was lodged at 12 noon. PW-11, the 
(;. 
police officer recorded statement of the deceased. Next 
day, statement of the deceased was recorded by 
Magistrate. After 5 days of the incident, deceased 
succumbed to injuries. Case was converted from one 
under Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. Trial Court 
H 
1202 
MUNNAWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. ETC. 1203 
acquitted the appellants of offence under Section 302 IPC 
A 
but convicted them under Section 307 IPC. Appellants 
filed appeals against conviction and the State filed appeal 
against acquittal of appellant of offence under Section 
302. High Court convicted appellants for offence under 
Section 302/149 IPC. Hence the appeals. 
B 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The dying declaration recorded by the 
Executive Magistrate gave full details as to the identity of C 
the assailants, the weapons used, the site of the injury 
and the fact that he was brought to the hospital by a 
neighbour and his elder brother who were accompanying 
him at the time of incident. The doctor, (PW 6) who was 
looking after the deceased when the dying declaration 
0 
was recorded gave a certificate that he was fully 
conscious and lucid at the time of its recording. The 
Magistrate also deposed that the deceased was fully 
conscious when the dying declaration was recorded by 
him. The submission that the injuries on the person of the 
E 
deceased were so serious that the evidence of the 
Executive Magistrate endorsed by the Doctor with regard 
to the fitness of the deceased was a matter of suspicion, 
was without basis. There were no suspicious 
circumstances whatsoever with. regard to the dying 
declaration recorded by the Magistrate and endorsed by 
the doctor and no substantial reas.ons were spelt out as 
F 
to why these officers would favour the prosecution. The 
fact that the deceased died several days later, of 
septicemia brought about by the gunshot injury clearly G 
showed that his condition was not overly critical or 
precarious when the dying declaration was recorded. 
[Paras 4, 5] [1209-A-E; 1210-E-F] 
Balak Ram v. State of U. P. 1975(3) SCC 219; K. 
H 
1204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 5 S.C.R. 
A Ramachandra Reddy & Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor 
1976(3) sec 618, referred to. 
2. Prima facie, some delay had occurred for the 
delivery of the special report., but that by itself would not 
8 
be of any consequence more particularly as the incident, 
as at that time, had not led to the death of the victim and 
case under Section 307 of the IPC was registered. The 
evidence of Doctor (PW-4) was that the injured was 
admitted to the hospital by his son, PW-1. The 
c promptness of the FIR is a clear reflection of the fact that 
the two eye witnesses were present at the time of 
incident. It is also the admitted position that the deceased 
and party were on their way to attend a court hearing 
when they were attacked. Those who are involved in 
0 
serious criminal litigation seldom go alone to attend court 
hearings, and are invariably accompanied by other 
persons as

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