PARBIN ALI AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 154 · Decided: 07-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 154 
PARBIN ALI AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2008) 
JANUARY 07, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
s. 302134 - Murder - Oral dying declaration made to 
witnesses naming the accused - Conviction and sentence of 
life imprisonment affirmed by High Court - Held: Conviction 
can be founded solely on the basics of dying declaration if 
the same inspires full confidence - In the instant case, the 
0 
witnesses have deposed in a categorical manner that the 
deceased was in a fit state of health to speak and make a 
statement and, in fact, he did make a statement as to who 
assaulted him - Nothing has been suggested to these 
witnesses about the condition of the deceased - The doctor, 
E who had performed the post mortem, has not been cross-
examined - Absence of any real discrepancy or material 
contradiction or omission and additionally no'n cross-
examination of the doctor in this regard makes the dying 
declaration absolutely credible and conviction based thereon 
cannot be faulted - Evidence - Dying Declaration. 
F 
FIR: 
Delay in lodging the FIR - Held: In the instant case, 
"ezahar'' had been lodged at the police station prior to 
G registration of the FIR - Trial court has analysed this aspect 
in an extremely careful and cautious manner which is found 
to be impeccable. 
The two appellants faced trial for causing the death 
of the husband of PW 2. The prosecution case was that 
H 
154 
PARBIN AU v. STATE OF ASSAM 
155 
at 9:00 PM on 17 .01.1994, PW 2, her father (PW 5) and 
A 
some other persons saw the deceased lying injured on 
the road side. The injured told the witnesses that he was 
assaulted by the two appellants and one 'A'. The 
witnesses could not arrange any conveyance to carry the 
injured to hospital and he died at 11 :00 PM. PW5 went to 
8 
the Police Station and got recorded an "ezahar"·. FIR was 
lodged the following day. 'A' died during the 
investigation. The trial court convicted both the 
appellants and u/s. 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to 
imprisonment for life, and the High Court upheld the 
C 
same. 
It was contended for the appellants that the oral 
dying declaration said to have been made by the 
deceased was highly unnatural and did not inspire 
confidence; and that though the Police Station was quite 
D 
. nearby, there was delay in lodging the FIR. It was, 
therefore, submitted that both the factors cast a doubt on 
the prosecution case. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The final opinion of PW4, the doctor, who 
conducted the post-mortem is that the death was caused 
due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante 
mortem injuries in the abdomen caused by sharp 
weapon and homicidal in nature. The said opinion was 
not challenged either before the trial Judge or before the 
High Court. The said witness has not been at all cross-
examined. Whether a person receiving such injuries 
would be in a position to speak or not has not been 
'.>rought out in the evidence. [Para 10) [162-A-C] 
1.2. The law is well settled that the conviction can be 
founded solely on the· basis of dying declaration if the 
same inspires full confidence. [Para 12) [162-F] 
E 
F 
G 
H 
156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Khusha/ Rao vs. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22; 
Kusa vs. State of Orissa AIR 1980 SC 559; Meesa/a 
Ramakrishnan vs. State of A. P. (199-j) 4 SCC 182; Ranjit 
Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 130 - relied on 
1.3. The witnesses who have deposed in respect of 
8 the oral dying declaration are PW-2 and 5, the wife and 
father-in-law, respectively, of the deceased, PW-1, a 
relative and PW-3. These witnesses have clearly stated 
that the deceased had informed them about the names 
of the assailants. Nothing worth has been elicited in the 
C cross-examination. They have deposed in a categorical 
manner that by the time they arrived at the place of 
occurrence, the deceased was in a fit state of health to 
speak and make a statement and, in fact, he did make a 
statement as to who assaulted him. Nothing has been 
D suggested to these witnesses about the condition of the 
deceased. PW-4, the doctor, who had performed the post 
mortem, has not been cross-examined. In this backdrop, 
it can safely be concluded that the deceased was in a 
conscious state and in a position to speak. Thus, it is 
E difficult to accept that the wife, the father-in-law and other 
close relatives would impl

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