Case Note & Summary
Background: The case involved an appeal under Section 16 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 filed by two appellants against their conviction by the Judge, Designated Court, Rohtak. The appellants were convicted for the murder of Rambhaj, with appellant No.1 Paramjit convicted under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 read with Section 6 of TADA, and appellant No.2 Inderjit Singh convicted under Section 302/34 IPC. Facts: On 25 December 1985, Paramjit passed indecent remarks on young girls near a village well. The deceased Rambhaj, a co-villager, reprimanded him. Later, the appellants declared they would teach Rambhaj a lesson. In the afternoon, Rambhaj was washing clothes near Radewala well when the appellants rushed towards him. Inderjit caught hold of Rambhaj while Paramjit stabbed him with a knife on the left side of the chest and thigh and hit him with the blunt side. Chander Bhan PW5 and Sunder Lal witnessed the assault and intervened; the appellants fled. Sunder Lal took Rambhaj to Sampla where they met ASI Rattan Singh PW6 at about 3:45 pm. Rambhaj made a signed statement Ex. PO which formed the FIR. The FIR was initially registered under Sections 307/324/323/34 IPC. Rambhaj was examined by Dr. B.D. Kalra PW1 at Sampla hospital at 4:20 pm, who found incised wounds on chest and thigh, and referred him to Medical College, Rohtak, where he was examined by Dr. Ashok Arora PW2 at 5:35 pm. Rambhaj succumbed to injuries at about 6:20 pm. The offence was altered, and investigation led to arrest of appellants and recovery of blood-stained knife and bushirts pursuant to disclosure statements. Serological and chemical reports confirmed human blood on the clothes. The appellants were tried and convicted on 18/20 April 1987. Legal Issues: The main questions were whether the dying declaration Ex. PO was reliable despite the deceased's condition later deteriorating; whether non-examination of Sunder Lal and Smt. Kela was fatal to prosecution; whether the offence fell under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offence given medical opinion that death could have been prevented with timely proper care; and whether Inderjit shared common intention under Section 34 IPC. Arguments: The appellants contended that the dying declaration was doubtful and appeared to be police padding because Dr. Kalra found Rambhaj's blood pressure unrecordable at 4:20 pm; that non-examination of Sunder Lal and Smt. Kela weakened the prosecution; that the medical opinion showed the injury could have been treated, so intent to murder was absent; and that Inderjit caused no injury and therefore lacked common intention. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court rejected these arguments. It held that the dying declaration Ex. PO was signed by Rambhaj and made at 3:45 pm, before his condition deteriorated at 4:20 pm; thus it was reliable. The non-examination of Sunder Lal, who was given up as won over, did not affect the prosecution because the evidence of Chander Bhan PW5 was credible and corroborated by the dying declaration and medical evidence. Smt. Kela had not witnessed the occurrence. On the question of intention, the Court referred to Explanation II to Section 299 IPC, which deems a person to have caused death by bodily injury even if proper remedies and skilful treatment might have prevented death. The death occurred within less than four hours despite medical aid. The knife was a formidable weapon with a 13.5-inch blade; injury No.1 on the left axillary region caused surgical emphysema and internal damage, sufficient to cause death. Thus, the offence fell under Section 302 IPC. Regarding common intention, the Court held that Inderjit's act of catching Rambhaj rendered the victim immobile and facilitated the stabbing, showing shared intention. He was not merely present but actively participated. Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences awarded by the Designated Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability of Dying Declaration - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The deceased made a signed dying declaration Ex. PO to ASI Rattan Singh before his condition deteriorated; later unrecordable blood pressure at hospital could not invalidate earlier statement - Held that the dying declaration was genuine, corroborated by eyewitness Chander Bhan PW5 and medical evidence, and was admissible and reliable. B) Criminal Trial - Witness Examination - Non-Examination of Eyewitness - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Non-examination of an eyewitness who was given up as won over does not affect prosecution case when another credible eyewitness and dying declaration exist; non-examination of a person who did not witness occurrence is irrelevant - Held that non-examination of Sunder Lal and Smt. Kela did not create doubt, and conviction could be based on Chander Bhan PW5's testimony. C) Criminal Law - Culpable Homicide and Murder - Explanation II to Section 299 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 299 Explanation II, Section 302 - Causing bodily injury is deemed to cause death even if proper remedies and skilful treatment might have prevented death - Medical opinion that injury could be fatal if proper care not given in time did not reduce offence from murder; the nature of injury, weapon, and intention showed requisite intention to cause death - Held that offence fell under Section 302 IPC. D) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 - Common intention can be inferred from conduct; catching hold of victim to immobilize and facilitate stabbing shows shared intention to commit murder even if no injury inflicted by that accused - Held that Inderjit's conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was proper. E) Criminal Law - Arms Offences - Sections 25/27 Arms Act and Section 6 TADA - Arms Act, 1959, Sections 25, 27; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, Section 6 - Recovery of blood-stained knife and shirt and use of knife in attack supported conviction under arms and TADA provisions - Held that conviction and sentence under these provisions were upheld.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration Ex. PO was reliable despite the deceased's later blood pressure being unrecordable; whether non-examination of eyewitness Sunder Lal and Smt. Kela affected prosecution case; whether the offence fell under Section 302 IPC or a lesser offence given medical opinion that timely proper care could have prevented death; whether appellant Inderjit shared common intention under Section 34 IPC when he did not inflict any injury.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences awarded by the Designated Court, Rohtak. Appellant No.1 Paramjit's conviction under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act read with Section 6 TADA, and appellant No.2 Inderjit Singh's conviction under Section 302/34 IPC, along with their sentences, were confirmed.
Law Points
- A dying declaration that is signed and made before condition deteriorates is reliable
- non-examination of a witness who is won over does not vitiate prosecution case if other credible evidence exists
- Explanation II to Section 299 IPC deems death caused by bodily injury even if proper treatment might have prevented it
- common intention under Section 34 IPC can be inferred from conduct of catching victim to immobilize and facilitate assault
- conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld where injury on vital part with sharp-edged knife shows requisite intention.
