Citations: Narain Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1616
Date of Judgement: 05/02/2004
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 323 of 2003
Case Type: Criminal Appeal
Petitioner: Narain Singh & Anr
Respondent: State of Haryana
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayat
Court: Supreme Court of India
Statutes Referred:
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 3(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 161
- Indian Penal Code,1860; Sections 34, 302, 323, 364
Facts:
- Original appellants filed an appeal against the decision passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court for their conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial court.
- In this case four accused were convicted for committing offence of homicidal death of Kaushal Singh (deceased) under Section 364, 302, 323 & Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 with fine and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
- The High Court directed the acquittal of accused Mahabir Singh and Rakesh (A-2 and A-4, respectively) and held that they were not to be found guilty.
- There was series of litigations between appellants Narain’s, Haimir Singh & Kaushal Singh (deceased) over certain property. Kaushal Singh (deceased) and his lawyer, Mal Chand Sharma travelled to Rewari on 4.05.1994, to take possession of land in village Bharawas over which the deceased’s title had been declared.
- While the informant and the deceased were walking towards the Jeep which was parked across the road, all four accused persons arrived in a Maruti Van and forcibly loaded the deceased into car and took him away.
- Thus, the matter was reported on the basis of F.I.R and the investigation was undertaken.
- During the investigation Accused No. 2 (Mahabir) and Accused No.4 (Rakesh) were found guilty of assaulting a deceased with lathi and khukri and statement of deceased was recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as a dying declaration
Issue involved:
- Whether the dying declaration under Section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 made by Kaushal Singh (deceased) to fasten the guilt of accused was acceptable by the trial court or not?
Contentions of Appellant:
The counsel for Appellant’s contended that:
- Prosecution relied on the dying declaration purported by the deceased.
- Furthermore, contented that dying declaration was acceptable by the trial court to fasten the accused guilt and sentenced them for committing assault upon the deceased.
Contentions of Respondent:
The counsel for the state gave following contentions to counter the Appellant’s arguments:
- Since the appellants had motive to murder the deceased and the dying declaration was acceptable so far as accused Mahabir Singh and Rakesh (A-2 and A-4 respectively) can free from criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.
Judgement:
The Appeal was allowed and the Bail Bond of Accused was cancelled.
- The High Court observed that the statement of dying declaration has not been recorded immediately. Court said that nebulous and suspect nature of the evidence suggested that the prosecution had not established the accusations so far as the Bail bond of Accused Narain.
- Hence, the appeal is allowed and their conviction is set aside. The Bail bond of Accused Narain Singh shall stand cancelled.
Ratio Decidendi:
- The time period between the recording of F.I.R and making a statement of dying declaration is too long after bringing the deceased back to the hospital to be examined by PW-7.
- Injuries found on the body of the deceased could not have been caused by the Khukri.
- The Court observed that the dying declaration was itself not proved and there is no evidence to support the charges of murder under Section 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Conclusion:
To conclude the above case the Apex Court had taken the appropriate decision in instance case that the dying declaration was not itself proved as it was not recorded at the instance stage of incident occurred.
Hence, to support the charges of murder under Section 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 was not showing as evidence. Therefore, Apex Court allowed the appeal and their convictions was set aside.
Drafted By: Samanta Rao, CLS – Gitarattan International Business School
Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider
Published On: October 6, 2021 at 09:30 IST