LexOM PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 13 (ADDL) S.C.R. 558 OM PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal 973 of 2003) NOVEMBER 09, 2010 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Murder - Previous enmity C between deceased and accused - Deceased shot dead by accused - Conviction based on evidence of eyewitnesses and dying declaration - Interference with - Held: The eyewitnesses gave consistent version of various incidents which precipitated the enmity between the deceased and the D accused - The evidence of eyewitnesses was clear and consistent with the medical evidence and dying declaration - No reason to interfere with the order of conviction - Evidence - Dying declaration. E Evidence: Dying declaration - Reliability on - Held: If the statement made by injured was candid, coherent and consistent, then there is no reason to disbelieve it - Merely because the dying declaration was not in question-answer form would not render it unreliable - In the circumstances, absence of certificate of fitness by doctor would also not be F sufficient to discard it - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. The prosecution case was that there was previous enmity between the victim-deceased and the accused- appellant. Few months prior to the incident also, the G appellant had tried to kill the deceased but at the time the deceased had managed to escape. On the day of incident, the deceased was on his way accompanied with PW-2 and PW-3. The appellant came there on a motorcycle armed with a double barrelled gun. The deceased was H 558 OM PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 559 about 15-20 paces ahead of the rest. When the deceased A saw the appellant advancing towards him, he tried to run. The appellant fired one shot from his double barrelled gun at the deceased. The deceased got injured and fell down. The appellant thereafter ran away leaving behind his motorcycle. PW-2 and others took the deceased to the 8 hospital. Thereafter they lodged the FIR. PW-6, the Tehsildar Magistrate recorded the dying declaration. After few hours, the deceased died. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302, IPC. The High Court upheld the order of conviction. The instant appeal was C filed challenging the order of the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW2 and PW3 gave clear and consistent eye-witness account. They narrated the previous incident 0 of disharmony between the appellant and the deceased. They also adverted to the previous attempts by the appellant to harm the deceased. The entire incident of shooting was graphically described by the two witnesses. They clearly stated that they did not chase the E appellant fearing for their own life. The courts below held that both PW-2 and PW-3 had given a consistent version F of the various incidents which precipitated the enmity between the deceased and the appellant. Both the courts also noticed that the FIR was initially registered under Section 307 IPC on the basis of the statement given by PW-2. In the FIR, this witness narrated the history of the animosity between the deceased and the appellant. Therefore, both the trial court as well as the High Court correctly concluded that the motive was not introduced only at the time of the trial, in Court. Both the trial court G as well as the High Court had held that the medical evidence was consistent with the ocular evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by both the courts. [Paras 15, 19, 22] [573-G-H; 573-A-B; 567- B-D; 570-B-C] H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A "Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" (19th Ed. Pg. 221 - referred to. 2. The Tehsildar, who recorded the dying declaration appeared as PW-6. He clearly stated that although no doctor was present in the hospital, he was informed by B the pharmacist that the deceased was in a fit state to make a statement. He, thereafter, isolated the injured and recorded his statement. He further stated that he wrote down word by word what the deceased had stated. The contents of the statement were read to the injured who C stated that he understood and accepted the same. Only thereafter, he had put his thumb impression on the statement. It is undoubtedly true that the statement was not recorded in the question and answer form. It is also correct that at the time when the statement was recorded D the deceased was in a "serious condition".
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.