Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
    • Supreme Court
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
  • Quick Recall
    • Arms Act
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • Evidence
    • Drugs Act
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
    • Pocso
    • MCOP
    • Writ
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • 3 judge bench
  • Resources
    • Notes
      • Cr.P.C 1973
      • Crimes
    • Articles
      • P.G.Rajagopal
      • AD. RAMPRAKASH RAJAGOPAL
      • Ad. Karunanithi
      • Ad. Ravindran Raghunathan
      • James Raja
    • Digest
      • Monthly Digest
      • Weekly digest
      • Subject wise
    • Bare Acts
      • BSA 2023
      • BNS 2023
      • BNSS 2023
  • Must Read
  • Author’s note
  • Legal words
  • Civil
    • s. 91 cpc
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: Disbelieving dying declaration: Both dying declarations were said to have given to the interested witnesses and not properly proved
Share
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
  • Acquittal
  • Digest
  • Resources
Search
  • Latest
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
    • Supreme Court
  • Quick Recall
    • Evidence
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • Pocso
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • Digest
    • Monthly Digest
    • Weekly digest
  • Resources
    • Notes
    • Articles
  • 3 judge bench
  • Must have
  • Author’S Note
  • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Mobile APP
  • My Bookmarks

Get Notifications

Notification
Follow US
> Quick Recall> Evidence> Disbelieving dying declaration: Both dying declarations were said to have given to the interested witnesses and not properly proved

Disbelieving dying declaration: Both dying declarations were said to have given to the interested witnesses and not properly proved

Head note: Appeal against conviction - Hon’ble High court confirmed conviction Incident - Dying declarations of deceased - First dying declaration is to his brother - Second dying declaration is to his mother - Eye-witness (PW-13) testimony of the incident - PW-13 is an interested witness with criminal background - SOC cannot be visible from the hotel where the witness have seen the occurrence - Analysing Dying Declaration - There is no evidence in record to prove the deceased was alive and in position to speak to his brother and mother.
Ramprakash Rajagopal January 6, 2024 9 Min Read
Share
Points
Appeal against convictionHon’ble High court confirmed convictionIncidentDying declarations of deceasedFirst dying declaration is to his brotherSecond dying declaration is to his motherEye-witness (PW-13) testimony of the incidentPW-13 is an interested witness with criminal backgroundSOC cannot be visible from the hotel where the witness have seen the occurrenceAnalysing Dying DeclarationThere is no evidence in record to prove the deceased was alive and in position to speak to his brother and motherParty
Appeal against conviction

2. Four persons namely Manja alias Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu, Gledwin alias Banti Isai and Ajay alias Ajayya were convicted to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC with a fine of Rs.5000/- each, and in default of payment of fine with a further rigorous imprisonment for six months in Sessions Trial Number 378 of 2007 vide judgment and order dated 15.09.2008 passed by the 13th Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Jabalpur, M.P.

Hon’ble High court confirmed conviction

3. On appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeal No.2031 of 2008 preferred by Manja @ Amit Mishra and Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu together and Criminal Appeal No. 2237 of 2008 preferred by Gledwin @ Banti Isai and Ajay @ Ajayya together, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Session Trial was upheld and both the appeals were dismissed by the High Court.

Incident

5. The incident is of 08.06.2007 which probably took place around 08.45 pm in the night, in front of Machchu Hotel which is located near Shukla Hotel within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ghamapur, Jabalpur. In the said incident, one Pappu alias Rajendra Yadav had died. It is alleged that when he along with his friends Virendra Verma and Amit Jha was coming out of the Machchu Hotel, he was beaten and assaulted by all the four accused with knife and other weapons such as sickle and kesia.

Dying declarations of deceased
First dying declaration is to his brother

7. The prosecution is based upon the dying declaration of the deceased. The said dying declaration is in oral form. It was made by the deceased to his brother Rajkumar Yadav and mother Usha Rani Yadav who have reached the place of occurrence on being informed that the deceased was being beaten and assaulted by the accused persons near Machchu Hotel. The dying declaration as revealed by Rajkumar Yadav was made by the deceased on the asking of the mother as to what had happened? It is in response to the above query that the deceased stated that the Banti Isai, Manja, Ajay have assaulted him with knife, dagger and kasia respectively whereas Jittu caught both his hands. The above dying declaration is in the shape of an answer to the question asked by the mother of the deceased as to what had happened to him when she saw him lying on the road in a pool of blood.

Second dying declaration is to his mother

8. The statement of the mother of the deceased PW-5 also contains a similar dying declaration of the deceased.

Eye-witness (PW-13) testimony of the incident

9. The statement of the mother of the deceased PW-5 also contains a similar dying declaration of the deceased. In addition to the above dying declaration, reliance has been placed upon the testimony of one of the eye witnesses, Rahul Yadav (PW-13). The said witness stated that the incident in which the deceased Pappu Yadav was killed had taken place between 08.30 pm to 09.00 pm on 08.06.2007 near Machchu Hotel. He was returning from his friend’s house and when reached near Shukla Hotel, he saw the accused persons namely Banti, Manja, Jitendra and Ajay beating Pappu Yadav. He tried to rescue Pappu Yadav but the accused persons drove him out. He then rushed to the House of Pappu Yadav to inform about the incident to his family members, but he found no one at the house and therefore left for his home.

PW-13 is an interested witness with criminal background

10. It has come in evidence that Rahul Yadav (PW-13) is a relative of the deceased Pappu Yadav and as such he is not a free and independent witness. He is likely to be an interested witness. The evidence reveals that he is a person with criminal background. He is involved in one of the cases registered under Section 324 and 326 IPC. He has been charge sheeted under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act. He has avoided the process of the Court and had been absconding for almost 7 months.

SOC cannot be visible from the hotel where the witness have seen the occurrence

11. In view of his above background, his testimony has to be considered with great circumspection and cannot be relied upon blindly without taking into account available corroborative evidence on record, if any. The evidence on record (i.e. site map) cast a serious doubt as to whether the place of occurrence or the Machchu Hotel was visible from the Shukla Hotel where the above witness was standing and from where is said to have seen the occurrence of the incident.

Analysing Dying Declaration

15. Now coming to the dying declaration made by the deceased to his brother and mother. We find that the injuries sustained by the deceased were very grave. The doctor (Dr. Abhishek Singh) who performed the postmortem at Medical College, Jabalpur opined that the left lung of the deceased was punctured causing respiratory failure and the left lung was pale. The heart injury sustained by him could have caused excessive bleeding and in that situation the person would have died between 5 to 10 minutes of receiving such injuries or within a maximum of 15 minutes. The postmortem report on record which was duly proved reveals that the deceased had died due to haemorrhage shock and cardio-respiratory failure. Apart from the injuries referred above, the deceased had suffered other serious injuries, not only on neck, chest and abdomen but also on the lower limbs from where bleeding had taken place. There was also an injury on the skull.

There is no evidence in record to prove the deceased was alive and in position to speak to his brother and mother

16. The brother of the deceased Rajkumar Yadav is a lawyer by profession. The brother and the mother of the deceased had rushed to the spot only after receiving information of the incident from PW-1 who after seeing the accused persons assaulting the deceased had gone to their house to inform of the incident. All this, obviously, could have consumed 15-25 minutes which means that by the time they reached the place of occurrence, the deceased could not have survived so as to make any declaration. There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive or in a position to speak when his brother & mother reached the spot. In these circumstances, the dying declaration cannot be ex facie accepted to be correct unless it stands corroborated by any other cogent evidence. There is no material to corroborate the said dying declaration.

Party

JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA @ JITTU …APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1348 OF 2011 with CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1347 OF 2011 = JANUARY 5, 2024 – 2024 INSC 20.

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/30954/30954_2010_15_1501_49186_Judgement_05-Jan-2024.pdf

jitendra-kumar-mishra-@-Jittu-vs.-The-state-of-M.P

 

Subject Study

  • Role of De-facto complainant during investigation and further investigation
  • Tamilnadu cash-for-job scam case: Criminal trial is not a friendly match between the complainant and the accused
  • Section 32 IPC: Common intention on facts
  • Section 183 Cr.P.C: Offence committed in journey or voyage
  • Principles governing for granting bail
  • Acquittal: If there are convincing eyewitnesses then non-examination of expert does not affect the prosecution case
  • Multiple firs quash procedure
  • Charge under section 149 IPC would be attracted even tried separately

Further Study

Dying Declaration: Disbelieving the dying declaration recorded (appreciation)

Cross-Examination: Disallowing questions in cross-examination will prejudice the accused

Cr.P.C., 1973. Notes no.5: General Provisions as to Inquiries and Trials – Part.3 (Duties of parties)

A must have judgment: How to appreciate Confession & circumstantial evidence?

Dying declaration: Witness who recorded the dying declaration must state in his chief-examination that the doctor examined the deceased before giving fitness certificate

TAGGED:disbelieving dying declarationsdying declarationfurther studyfurther study on the subjectJustice oka
Previous Article Must have judgment for defense counsels: Prosecution cannot prove a fact during trial through witness which was not stated to the police during investigation
Next Article Acquittal: Appreciation of evidence
1 Comment
  • Pingback: Section 395 IPC: Dacoity: Since there is no minimum sentence prescribed under section 395 IPC sentence reduced to already undergone - section1.in

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Study

The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937- Conundrum

Article: The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937- Conundrum

Reshma Azath December 2, 2024
Monthly Digest February’ [End] 2025
N.I Act: Certain documents were suppressed in the statement on oath and made out a false case
Supreme court clarified the celebrated Uma devi judgment. State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006 (4) SCC 1). (hereinafter umadevi judgment)
Dowry death: Acquittal: Evidence on record is full of omissions amount to material contradiction to peril the prosecution story of demand of dowry

Related Study

Act 14 of 1982: Sexual offender: Unexplained delay of 21 days in considering the representation is prejudice to the detenu (with direction to the state government on giving counselling to the arrested teenagers)
April 21, 2024
N.I Act appeal compensation: Deposit of 20% is not an absolute rule may be reduced or even exempted
January 24, 2024
Acquittal: Appreciation of evidence
January 7, 2024
Murder intention confirmed: If the accused has no intention, then he could not have gone into his house and brought billhook to assault the accused
July 13, 2024
Conviction Sudden provocation
April 8, 2023

About

Section1.in is all about the legal updates in Criminal and Corporate Laws. This website also gives opportunity to publish your (readers/users) articles subject to the condition of being edited (only if necessary) by the team of Advocates. Kindly send your articles to paperpageindia@gmail.com or WhatsApp to +919361570190.
  • Quick Links
  • Team
  • Terms
  • Cancellation Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • My Bookmarks

section1.in is powered by Paperpage.             © Paperpage Internet Services.                       All Rights Reserved.

Subscribe Newsletter for free

Subscribe to our newsletter to get judgments instantly!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

ஓர்ந்துகண் ணோடாது இறைபுரிந்து யார்மாட்டும் தேர்ந்துசெய் வஃதே முறை [541].

_திருவள்ளுவர்
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?