Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Sudhir Kumar Jain against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court affirming his conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act. The case arose from an incident on 17.04.2003 where the deceased Rajendra Sahu was shot dead near Baheti Hospital. The prosecution's case relied on a dying declaration (parcha bayan) recorded by ASI PW-22, which did not name the assailant. All eye witnesses turned hostile. The only other evidence was the testimony of Constable Suresh Kumar (PW-18), who claimed to have been in the car with the accused but his statement was recorded after 18 days, and the recovery of a country made pistol from the appellant, which was found to be defective and not serviceable. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration could not be relied upon as it did not identify the accused. The hostile witnesses could not support the prosecution. The delay in recording PW-18's statement and the defective weapon raised serious doubts. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Dying Declaration - Section 302 IPC - Dying declaration (parcha bayan) did not name the assailant or identify the occupants of the car - Held that such dying declaration cannot be the sole basis for conviction (Paras 4-8). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Hostile Witnesses - All eye witnesses turned hostile and did not support prosecution case - Held that conviction cannot be based on hostile witnesses (Paras 4-5). C) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of Weapon - Arms Act, 1959, Section 3/25 - Country made pistol recovered was not serviceable due to defect in mechanism - Ballistic expert opinion that it could have been fired but not in working condition - Held that recovery of defective weapon raises doubt about its use in crime (Paras 6-7). D) Criminal Law - Witness Credibility - Delay in Recording Statement - Statement of PW-18 Constable recorded after 18 days - Held that delay raises serious doubt about credibility (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of the Arms Act is sustainable based on the dying declaration, evidence of PW-18 Constable, and recovery of the weapon.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Dying declaration must name the assailant to be relied upon
- Hostile witnesses cannot form basis of conviction
- Recovery of defective weapon raises doubt
- Delay in recording witness statement casts doubt on credibility
