Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ajaykumar Sunilkumar Sharma, was convicted by the 11th Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Dewree, Greater Bombay, in Sessions Case No.690 of 2001 for offences under Sections 395, 396, 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 25.3.2001, at about 8.45 to 9.00 p.m., the appellant along with four others approached the complainant Nadeema (PW-1) and the deceased Raju Nambiyar at Juhu Beach. They demanded that the duo hand over their belongings. When Raju resisted, the appellant stabbed him with a chopper on his stomach and both thighs. Nadeema shouted for help, and two persons from nearby slums came to assist. They took Raju and Nadeema to Cooper Hospital, where Raju was declared dead. Nadeema lodged an FIR, and investigation commenced. The post-mortem revealed multiple incised wounds. The appellant was arrested and identified by Nadeema in a test identification parade. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder and dacoity, and five years for robbery. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The main legal issues were whether the testimony of the injured eyewitness was sufficient for conviction and whether the dying declaration of the deceased was reliable. The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses and that the identification parade was flawed. The respondent-State argued that the testimony of the injured witness was credible and corroborated by medical evidence and the dying declaration. The High Court analyzed the evidence and held that the testimony of PW-1 was trustworthy and consistent with the medical evidence. The dying declaration recorded by PW-5 was also found to be voluntary and consistent. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder and Dacoity - Sections 395, 396, 302, 397 IPC - Testimony of Injured Witness - The appellant was convicted for dacoity and murder based on the sole testimony of PW-1, an injured eyewitness. The court held that the testimony of an injured witness is entitled to great weight and does not require corroboration if it is credible and trustworthy. The medical evidence corroborated the ocular version. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Dying Declaration - Section 32 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The deceased's dying declaration recorded by PW-5 was consistent with the FIR and the testimony of PW-1. The court held that the dying declaration was voluntary and reliable, and could be used as corroborative evidence. (Paras 11-15) C) Criminal Law - Identification of Accused - Test Identification Parade - The appellant was identified by PW-1 in a test identification parade. The court held that the identification was valid and the appellant was correctly identified as the assailant. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 395, 396, 302 and 397 of IPC is sustainable based on the testimony of the injured eyewitness and medical evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed by the trial court are upheld.
Law Points
- Testimony of injured witness is reliable and does not require corroboration
- Medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony
- Conviction can be based on sole testimony of injured witness if credible
