STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus ASHFAQ AHMED

Citation: [2009] 5 S.C.R. 306 · Decided: 04-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 5 S.C.R. 306 
I . • 
A 
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN 
\/. 
ASHFAQ AHMED 
(Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2003) 
MARCH 04, 2009 
... 
' 
B 
J 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND 
ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s. 302 - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High 
Court - HELD: High Court rightly held that the only evidence 
relied upon by trial court, purported to have been recorded 
by JO was not a dying declaration - There was no evidence 
D to show that the victim was in a condition to make a statement 
- There is no infirmity in the judgment of High Court to warrant 
interference - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
The instant appeal was filed by the State Government 
against the judgment of the High Court by which it set 
E aside the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the 
accused by the trial court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: The only evidence on which the trial court 
' . 
recorded the conviction was Ext. P-1 purported to have 
been recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-23). The 
High Court held that Ext. P-1 was not a dying declaration 
and was not sufficient to hold the accused guilty, 
-
G 
particularly, when the father of the deceased, who was 
examined as PW 5, categorically stated that the deceased 
was not in a condition to make any statement. PW-23 
admitted that there was no record to show that the doctor 
opined that the deceased was in a condition to make a 
statement. PW-23 only stated that he had taken the oral 
H 
306 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. ASHFAQ AHMED 
307 
--' -' 
"' 
consent of the doctor (PW-1) who was attending the · A 
patient, but PW1 has not indicated anything about the 
condition of the deceased to make a statement or about 
the so-called oral consent. On the contrary, one of the 
doctors comprising the Medical Board categorically 
.. ' 
stated that when they examined the deceased, the 
B 
_!. 
condition of the patient was so critical that it was even 
impossible to examine his injuries medically. That was the 
only evidence on which the conviction was recorded by 
the trial court. The High Court was, therefore, justified in 
reversing the judgment of conviction and directing c 
acquittal. There is no infirmity in the judgment of the High 
Court to warrant interference. [Para 3 and 4] [308-8-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 591 of 2003. 
.... 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.7.2002 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in D.B. 
Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1997. 
Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG and Milind Kumar for the 
E 
Appellant. 
Sushil Kumar, Pratibha Jain and Puneet Jain for the 
1 
Respondents. 
.) 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard. 
1. The present appeal is filed by the State of Rajasthan 
-
questioning the order passed by a Division Bench of the 
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench directing acquittal of the 
G 
respondent. The respondent Ashfaq Ahmed faced trial for 
alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 · 
of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I PC'). Learned 
Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota found the respondent 
accused guilty and convicted him· for offence punishable under 
H 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 5 S.C.R. 
! -
j 
A Section 302 I PC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment 
for life. 
2. The High Court by the impugned order directed 
acquittal. 
~ 
B 
3. The High Court noticed that the Parcha bayan (Ext. P1) 
' ... 
purported to !Yave been recored by the Investigating Officer 
Shri Rajendra Prasad (P W- 23) was not a dying declaration 
and was not sufficient to hold the accused guilty particularly 
when the father of the deceased who was examined as P W 5 
c categorically stated that the deceased was not in a condition 
to make any statement. P W-23 admitted that there was no 
record to show that the Doctor opined that the deceased was 
in a condition to make a statement. P W- 23 only stated that 
he had taken the oral consent of the Doctor who was attending 
D the patient. Unfortunately the said Doctor Shri Laxmi Nath 
~ 
Meena who was examined P W 1 has not indicated any thing 
about the condition of the deceased to make a statement or 
about the so-called oral consent. On the contrary Dr. G.S. 
Bishnar who was a member of the Medical Board categorically 
E stated that when the Medical Board examined the deceased, 
the condition of the patient was so critical that it was even 
imposs

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