RAFIQUE @ RAUF & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2013] 7 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 02-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 7 S.C.R. 293 
RAFIQUE @ RAUF & OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 2008) 
JULY 2, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED . 
·IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss.3021149, 3071149, 452, 148 and 147 - Accused 
indulging in indiscriminate firing, causing death of one of their 
opponents and injuries to two others - Conviction and life 
sentence awarded by courts below - Held: The presence of 
A 
B 
c 
the informant and injured witnesses at the place of occurrence 
D 
has been sufficiently explained - Their evidence and the 
statement of the deceased recorded soon after the incident, 
the injuryreports and the post-mortem report as well as the 
motive clearly bring home the guilt of accused-appellants --
Having regard to the extent of the injuries sustained by 
E 
deceased, and the witnesses and the aggression with which 
the offence was committed, which resulted in the loss of life 
of one person considered along with the motive, there is 
absolutely no scope to reduce the gravity of the offence 
committed by the appellants and to modify the conviction and 
F 
the sentence imposed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.161 and s.162(2) - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.32(1). 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s. 32(1) - Dying declaration - Statement of deceased 
G 
recorded by police soon after the occurrence - Factors to be 
considered to place reliance upon such statement as dying 
declaration - Explained - Held: The grievous injuries sustained 
by the victim on his vital parts of body and his death within 
293 
H 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 
A 24 hours, was sufficient to reach a conclusion that whether or 
not he was in the expectation of his death -- The further finding 
of courts below that there was no scope for any manipulation 
at the instance of police also strengthens the reliance placed 
upon by prosecution on the said statement by treating the 
B same as a dying declaration - Sub-s. (2) of s.162, CrPC 
makes the position clear that the statement as a dying 
declaration would squarely fall within the said sub-section and 
has to only satisfy the stipulations contained in s. 32(1) of 
Evidence Act- High Court rightly relied upon the said 
c statement as a dying declaration, squarely falling within the 
statutory prescription of s. 32(1) of Evidence Act- Penal Code, 
1860 - s.3021149, 3071149, 452, 148 and 147 - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.161 and 162(2). 
The eight appellants were prosecuted for 
D commission of offences punishable u/ss 3021149, 149, s. 
307/149, 452, 148 and 147 IPC. The case of the 
prosecution was that 7 days prior to the date of 
occurrence there was some dispute between the children 
of the complainant party and the accused persons over 
E a goat belonging to the accused persons stated to have 
gone into the maize field of 'Z', the brother of PW-1; that 
pursuant to the said incident, on 05.09.1997 at about 3.00 
pm, all the appellants-accused possessed with fire arms, 
entered the house of the 'Z', where P.Ws.1 to 3 were 
F conversing with him, and made indiscriminate firing 
causing firearm injuries to 'Z' and P.Ws.2 and 3; that 'Z' 
and other injured were taken to Kotwali where P.W.1 
lodged the written complaint and the Investigating Officer 
(PW-6) recorded the statement of 'Z' purportedly uls 161 
G Cr.P.C (Ext. Ka-9); that the injured were sent to the 
hospital where 'Z' succumbed to his injuries on the 
following day. The trial court convicted all the accused 
persons ulss 3021149, 307/149,452, 148 and 147 IPC and 
sentenced them to various terms of sentences including 
H life imprisonment uls 3021149. The High Court dismissed 
RAFIQUE @ RAUF & OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. 
295 
their appeal. 
In the instant appeal filed by the convicts, the . 
arguments for the parties boiled down to the following 
questions: 
A 
(i) Whether the reliance placed by the High Court on 
B 
Ext. K-9 (the recorded statement of the deceased) as 
a dying declaration and the confirmation of the 
conviction on that basis was justified? 
(ii) Whether there was any controversy relating to c 
place of occurrence in order to doubt the case of the 
prosecution? 
(iii) Whether there was any doubt about the death of 
the deceased? 
(iv) Whether the offence would fall u/s 304 and not 
u/s 302 IPC? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
D 
HELD: 1.1 It is significant to note that as on date, 
E 
there is no statutory prescription as to the manner or the 
procedure to be follow
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.