Case Note & Summary
The case involves three appellants convicted for the murder of Nagender Yadav. The incident occurred on the intervening night of 15th and 16th May 2012, when the deceased was shot by accused no.1 in the presence of accused nos.2 and 3. The deceased made oral dying declarations to his wife (PW-1) and brother (PW-2), naming the assailants. The trial court convicted all three under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and additionally convicted accused no.1 under the Arms Act. The High Court confirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, particularly the dying declarations. The court found the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 to be natural, consistent, and without material contradictions. The court noted that the dying declaration was made shortly after the incident and the deceased was conscious. The court rejected the appellants' arguments regarding darkness and the gate being open, as PW-1 stated there was a street light and the gate was open. The court also noted that the FSL report could not link the bullet to the recovered weapon, but that did not affect the reliability of the dying declaration. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was trustworthy and sufficient to sustain the conviction. The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Oral Dying Declaration - Reliability - The deceased, after being shot, told his wife (PW-1) that accused no.1 shot him and accused nos.2 and 3 were present. He also told his brother (PW-2) on the way to the hospital. The testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 was found natural, consistent, and without material contradictions. The court held that the dying declaration is reliable and can form the basis of conviction even without corroboration, as it inspires confidence. (Paras 6-10) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - Conviction - The appellants were convicted for murder based on the dying declaration and recovery of a firearm at the instance of accused no.1. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court. (Paras 1, 11) C) Criminal Law - Arms Act - Section 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) - Conviction - Accused no.1 was also convicted under the Arms Act for possession and use of a firearm. The conviction was upheld as the recovery of the weapon was proved. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration made by the deceased to his wife and brother is reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under the Arms Act.
Law Points
- Dying declaration
- Section 32 Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Reliability of oral dying declaration
- Conviction based on dying declaration without corroboration
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Arms Act
