Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay was hearing three criminal appeals against the judgment and order dated 17/11/2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vasai in Sessions Case No.66/2012. The appeals were filed by three appellants who were the original accused in the trial. Accused No.1 Rahim Rais Khan, Accused No.2 Roshan @ Chini Dannichand Thakur, and Accused No.3 Ramchandra @ Ram Mewalal Yadav were convicted for the murder of Neeraj Singh and for assault on eye witnesses. The prosecution case was that on the night of 15/04/2012 and 16/04/2012, out of a petty quarrel, Accused No.1 intercepted the car in which Neeraj Singh was travelling with his friends. The accused damaged the car, assaulted the friends with sticks, and assaulted Neeraj with a broken beer bottle and a knife. Neeraj was taken to Alliance Hospital and then to Orbit Hospital, where a police officer recorded his statement in the morning of 16/04/2012, leading to registration of FIR. Accused No.1 was arrested on 18/04/2012, and the other two accused on 20/04/2012. Neeraj succumbed to his injuries on the evening of 16/04/2012. During investigation, clothes of accused were seized, a beer bottle was recovered at the instance of Accused No.1, and a knife at the instance of Accused No.2. A finger print expert opined that the print on the beer bottle matched Accused No.1. The trial court examined 16 witnesses, including three eye witnesses PW1 Hiren Yadnic, PW2 Piyush Shah, and PW3 Loyoid Nazarin, who testified about the incident. PHC Nathuram Hate recorded the dying declaration. Medical evidence included the post mortem doctor, the doctor who certified fitness for dying declaration, and the treating doctor at Orbit Hospital. The trial court believed the eye witnesses and the dying declaration and convicted the appellants. Accused No.1 was convicted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine; he was also convicted under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 IPC for assault on eye witnesses. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were similarly convicted and additionally under Section 324 read with 34 IPC for causing hurt with dangerous weapon. All three appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. The High Court was hearing the appeals, but the available text does not include the final decision or the detailed arguments of counsel. The court was in the process of examining the evidence of eye witnesses and other material.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 - Trial court convicted all three accused for murder of Neeraj Singh under Section 302 read with 34 IPC based on eye witnesses and dying declaration. The High Court was examining the sustainability of the conviction. Held that the case hinges on reliability of direct evidence and dying declaration (Paras 1-6). B) Criminal Law - Assault and Criminal Intimidation - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 - Accused No.1 convicted under Sections 341/323/504/506 read with 34; Accused Nos.2 and 3 additionally under Section 324 read with 34 for causing hurt with dangerous weapon. Evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 described how accused intercepted car, damaged windscreen, and assaulted with bamboo and fists. Held that direct evidence of three eye witnesses was relied upon by trial court for these convictions (Paras 7-8). C) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Value - Not specified - PHC Nathuram Hate recorded dying declaration of deceased at Orbit Hospital after doctor certified fitness. Trial court relied on dying declaration along with eye witness testimony. Held that dying declaration is a relevant piece of evidence in the circumstances (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and other offences based on eye witness testimony and dying declaration is sustainable
Law Points
- The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused shared common intention under Section 34 IPC
- Dying declaration recorded by PHC after fitness certification can be relied upon
- Direct evidence of eye witnesses is primary evidence
- Recovery of weapons at instance of accused admissible subject to proof
- Finger print expert opinion can corroborate identity
