Case Note & Summary
The case involved a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21.2.1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 691-DB of 1981. The appellant, Bhagirath, was accused No. 1 in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 1980 and was convicted by the High Court under Section 302 IPC, sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000, after the High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa on 27.05.1981. The prosecution case was that on 29.05.1980 at about 2 P.M. in Mandi Dabwali, the appellant fired a shot from a country made pistol at Nihal Singh as he was going to Dabwali Mandi after being free from court, causing gunshot injuries. Nihal Singh was taken to Civil Hospital, Dabwali where Head Constable Dharambir recorded his statement after obtaining a fitness certificate from Dr. Gulati. The statement was sent to the police station and formed the basis of FIR. Nihal Singh was later referred to Civil Hospital, Sirsa and then to Rohtak, where he succumbed to his injuries on 30.5.1980 at 3.45 P.M. During investigation, an empty cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence. Later, Om Prakash and Balwant were arrested, and a country made pistol of .12 bore with a cartridge was recovered from Om Prakash, leading to a separate Arms Act case. The trial court acquitted the appellant due to several doubts. The Sessions Judge found that the dying declaration was not recorded as a dying declaration but for registering a case; it was read over twice but no endorsement was made; Dr. Gulati was not attentive when the statement was recorded; and a subsequent police query indicated that Dr. Gulati signed after enquiring from Nihal Singh whether he had given the statement, suggesting it was not read over in his presence. The Sessions Judge also doubted the genuineness of the medico-legal report due to inconsistent pencil markings, missing particulars of accompanying persons, and timing discrepancy because the injured was allegedly 35 miles away at the time the dying declaration was recorded. Additionally, the Sessions Judge held that the dying declaration was not admissible because death was not directly due to the injuries but on account of toxemia resulting from peritonitis as deposed by the post-mortem doctor. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant, leading to the present appeal. The legal issues before the Supreme Court included the reliability and admissibility of the dying declaration, the cause of death, and the correctness of the High Court's reversal of acquittal. The available text of the judgment ends before the Supreme Court's final decision is recorded, so the ultimate holding and directions are not mentioned in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Trial court acquitted the accused because the dying declaration was recorded by Head Constable Dharambir as a statement for registering a case, not as a formal dying declaration, read over twice but without endorsement, and the doctor was not attentive during recording. Subsequent police query revealed the doctor signed after enquiring from the injured, indicating the statement was not read over in doctor's presence. Held that the dying declaration was not a convincing document by the Sessions Judge; the High Court reversed this finding and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 1-4) B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Admissibility and Cause of Death - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Death was due to toxemia resulting from peritonitis, not directly from gunshot injuries as per post-mortem doctor. Trial court held the dying declaration inadmissible because death was not directly on account of injuries. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court correctly accepted the evidence despite this medical opinion. Held that the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration turned on the causal connection between injuries and death, and the trial court's doubts were not sufficiently dispelled by the High Court. (Paras 3-4) C) Criminal Law - Evidence - Medical Evidence and MLR - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Medico-legal report was doubted due to inconsistent pencil markings, absence of particulars of accompanying persons, and timing discrepancy as the injured was 35 miles away at the same time the dying declaration was purportedly recorded. Held that these discrepancies undermined the credibility of the medical evidence and the prosecution narrative, contributing to the trial court's acquittal, which the High Court overturned without adequate reasoning. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC; whether the dying declaration recorded by Head Constable Dharambir was reliable and admissible; whether the death of Nihal Singh was caused by the injuries sustained in the incident or by toxemia resulting from peritonitis; whether the medico-legal report and other evidence supported the prosecution case
Final Decision
Final decision of Supreme Court not mentioned in provided text; High Court convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC awarding life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000, while trial court had acquitted.
Law Points
- Dying declaration recorded as statement for registration of FIR may lack evidentiary value
- procedural safeguards must be observed while recording dying declaration
- death resulting from toxemia after gunshot injury may still be homicidal if causal connection established
- acquittal can be reversed if evidence is found reliable
- ocular and documentary evidence must be consistent
