LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus TEJA RAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN A v. TEJA RAM AND ORS. MARCH 19, 1999 [K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA JJ.] B Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 32-Dying declaration-Evidentiary value of-Medical evidence showing that brain functions of the injured impaired due to brain C injury-Held, even if the injured were able to speak out something after sustaining injuries, such dying declarations cannot be relied upon. Sections 27 & 45-Recovery of weapon-On basis of statement of accused-The recovered axes found stained with blood-Blood on one axe found to be of human origin-Blood on other axe could not be detected by D serologist due to disintegration of serum-Does not mean that blood stuck on other axe would not have been human blood at all-Held, recovery of weapon would not stand relegated to disutility. Sections 155, 14-Jmpeaching credit of witness-Mode of-Use of former statement for the purpose of contradicting the witness-Defence may request E for recalling the witness for further cross-examination if the former statement comes on record subsequently. Section 3-Testimony_of probable witnesses--Rejection on the ground that they all are close relatives of deceased and no independent withnesses F l~re examined..,--Held, not proper. Criminal trial--Discrepancies in evidence in two sets of witnesses-As regard the gate from which assailants went out after committing crime-One set of witnesses stating it was western gate and other set stating eastern gate, both gates being of the same house and situated close to each other- G Occurrence took place at wee hours of night-Held, no adverse inference can be drawn against such withnesses. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section l 62 (I)& (2)-Seizure Memo-Prohibition of obtaining H 29 30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R. A signature of person whose statement reduced in writing-On facts, Investigating officer prepared seizure memo and obtained signature of accused on seizure memcr-Held, does not vitiate the seizure or testimony of such accused in Court-That apart, prohibition in Section 162 (I) is not applicable to any proceedings made under Section 27 of Evidence Act-Evidence Act, Section 27. B In sessions court seven persons were put on trial as assailants in the double murder episode. The Trial Court relied on the dying declarations of deceased 'R' and 'C' recorded by the investigating officer. It also relied on the testimony of withnesses who reached the scene and saw the assailants C running away with axes and lathies and also the recoyery of the weapons, convicted the six accused under section 302 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code and other allied offences. The_n the respondents filed an appeal. The Division Bench set-aside' the convicti'On.andsentence and acquitted all the accused. Hence this appeal. D Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court was justified in not acting on the dying declaration. If the injured is able to mutter. something or even speak out something after sustaining the brain injuries it is extremely unsafe to place E any credence on such statements as the brain functions of the injured would have impaired due to the .brain injuries. [34-F-G; 35-B-C) 1.2. When there is failure of serologist in detecting the origin of the blood due to the disintegration of the serum it would not mean that the blood stuck on the axe would not have been human blood at all and the circumstances F arising from recovery of the weapon would not stand relegated to disutility. Therefore, the High Court erred in not placing reliance on the evidence relating to recovery of axes. [37-H; 38-A; C-D; 39-B] G Prabhu Babaji v. State of Bombay, AIR (1956) SC 51 and Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of UP, AIR (1963) SC 74, distinguished. 1.3. Under Section 155 (3) of the Evidence Act, one of the permitted modes of impeaching the credit of a witness is proof of former statements for the purposes of contradicting witness which is inconsistent with any part H of his testimony. (40-E) STATE OF RAJASTHAN v.TEJA RAM 31 In the instant case, it cannot be said that the former statement was not available for the defence to confront 'M' since the head constable to whom former statement was made, was examined later. Therefore, it was open to the defence to request for recalling the witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination to impeach his veracity on the strength of the alleged former statement which came on rec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.