LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus MANGE RAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-. • ' ., ) ' STATE OF HARYANA · v. MANGE RAM AND ORS. DECEMBER 11, 2002 [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860-Sectiotis 302 read with 34 and 325, 326 read with 34-Accused causing grievous injuries to a person who later succumbed to A B his injuries-Trial Court acquitting them for murder, however convicting for C voluntarily causing grievous hurt-High Court discarding the testimony of doctors, eye witness and the dying declarations, acquitting the accused- Appeal-Held· View of High Court is not reasonable and reasons for discarding the testimony of eye witness and dying declaration are wholly untenable-- Hence Trial Court rightly convicted accused for the offence of causing grievous hurt. D Evidence Act, 1872: Dying declaration-Admissibility of-Held· It is not necessary that the maker of the statement, at the time of making statement, should be under the shadow of death and should entertain the belief that his death was imminent. E Natural witness-Evidentiary value-Discussed According to the prosecution, on account of previous enmity respondents inflicted grievous injuries to a person by weapons and ran away. PW-5 and one S witnessed the incident. Injured victim was taken F to the hospital, where Head Constable recorded his statement and on that basis FIR was recorded. Injured victim thereafter succumbed to his injuries. Respondents were charged under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. Sessions Judge acquitted them under section 302 read with section 34, however, convicted and punished them for offence under section 325/ G 34 and section 326134 IPC. In cross appeals High Court allowed the appeal of respondents and acquitted them. Hence the present appeal. Appellants contended that respondents deserved to be convicted for offence under section 302134 IPC. 35 H A B 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. Having gone through the testimony of the doctors, PWS and PW9 and the dying declaration, the view of High Court is not a reasonable view and the reasons for discarding the testimony of eye witness PWS a.nd the dying declaration are wholly untenable. (40-DI 1.2. High Court committed basic infirmity in assuming that for a dying declaration to. be admissible in evidence, it is necessary that the maker of the statement, at the time of making statement, should be under the shadow of death and should entertain the belief that his death was C imminent. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act does not say this and this is not the law in India. High Court further committed infirmity in assuming that there was any delay in recording the statement. High Court rightly recorded that the deceased was not under shadow of death when statement was recorded. Evidently, there was not a great emergency to record the statement. Be that as it may, it was fully established that there D was no delay at all. Therefore it is not reasonable to conclude that there was any delay in recording of the statement and drawing inference therefrom that the intervening time was utilized for deliberation and false implication on account of previous enmity. (40-F, G, H; 40-A, D, El 1.3. Undisputedly, the injured was fully conscious. He watched the E accused giving injuries on his person. It would be too much to imagine that despite seeing these injuries inflicted on him, he would, while making the statement, implicate respondents on account of previous enmity leaving the real person who had inflicted injuries altogether free. The injured in his statement gave a detailed account of the injuries as also the manner F in which PWS witnessed the occurrence and tried to intervene in the matter and rescue and save him. There was no plausible reason to discard the statement of the victim and testimony of PW9. The statement of the G victim inspires confidence and was rightly relied upon by Sessions Court. Also the prosecution had given up S as he had business dealing with the accused and had been won over. (41-E, F; GJ 1.4. High Court lost sight of the fact that PWS was a resident of the same village as the accqsed and the deceased. The fact that PW8 in his police statement failed to mention about the presence of PWS at the place of occurrence was an irrelevant circumstance for disbelieving PWS. PWS gave details of all the injuries inflicted by the accused. Nothing worthwhile H could be extracted in his cross-examinat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.