PARAS YADAV AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 55 · Decided: 12-01-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PARAS YADAV AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
JANUARY 12, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Oiminal Law : 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 32. 
Dying declaration-Statement of deceased--Recorded in a routine 
C 
manner by Sub-Inspector of Police and not as a dying declaration-After 
death of deceased statement treated as dying declaratiol!-Deceased was in a 
fit state of health to make statement-Held, Evidence of witnesses does not 
suffer from any infinnity which would render dying declaration as doubtfal or 
wiwoTthy of credence-In the circumstances of the case, lapse on the palt of D 
the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour· of the ac-
cused-Prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hors such omis-
sions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. 
Penal Code, 1860 : Section 302/34. 
Death by chlmra blow-No eyewitness to the incide/lt-Prosecution 
case based upon complaint of deceased which was later treated as dying 
declaration after death of deceased-Such oral dying declaration found ~eli­
able-Prosec1ition version co1Toborated by medical evidence'-lfeld, Convic-
tion of A-1 who inflicted chu1Ta blow, upheld-However, because of 
inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses with regard to the role played by 
A-2 and A-3, their conviction set aside-'-Crimimil Trial. 
The appellant-accused No. 1 and the appellants-accused Nos. 2 and 
E 
F 
3 were convicted by the. Sessions Court under Section 302 . of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC respectively G 
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court 
confirmed the conviction. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the deceased was found.lying on a road 
with bleeding injuries when witnesses rushed to the scene of offence. The 
deceased made a statement to the witnesses that accused Nos. 2 and 3 H · 
55 
56 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 1 S.C.R. 
A caught hold of him while accused No. 1 gave a chwra blow l-:_ :.is abdomen. 
B 
The Sub- Inspector of Police who was on patrolling duty recorded the 
statement of the deceased as a complaint. The deceased expired after 24 
hours. Later, the said complaint was treated as dying declaration. All the 
witnesses deposed that the deceased was in a fit state of health to make 
the statements on the date of incident. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the Sub-Inspector 
of Police recorded the statement in a routine manner as a complaint and 
not as a dying declaration; and that there were inconsistencies in the 
evidence of the witnesses with regard to the role played by accused Nos. 2_ 
C and 3 and, therefore, their conviction should be set aside. 
Allowing the appeal partly, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is true that there is negligence on the part of the 
D Investigating Officer. On occasions, such negligence or omission may give 
rise to reasonable doubt, which would obviously go in favour of the 
accused. But, in the present case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses 
clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was con-
scious and he was removed to the hospital by bus. All the witnesses 
deposed that the deceased was in a fit state of health to make the state-
E ments on the date of incident. He expired only after more than 24 hours. 
No justifiable reason is pointed out to disbelieve the evidence of a number 
of witnesses who rushed to the scene of offence. Their evidence does not 
suffer from any infirmity, which would render the dying declaration doubt-
ful or unworthy of credence. In such a situation, the lapse on the part of 
F 
the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused, may 
be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, 
the prosecution evidence is required to be examined de hVI~· such omissions 
to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. [60-G-H, 61-H-C] 
G 
Rarh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, JT (1998) 3 SC 290, relied on. 
2.1. There is no reason to disbelieve the dying declaration as deposed 
~ ,
by number of witnesses and as recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police. 
The medical evidence also corroborates the prosecution version. Hence, 
the courts below have rightly convicted accused No. 1 for the offence 
H punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. [61-E-F] 
P. YADAVv. STATE[SHAH,J.] 
57 
2.2. However, the prosecution version with regard to the part played A 
by accused Nos. 2

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