Dashrath @ Champa And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

He found as many as 18 injuries on his body as per his report Ex.P.16. Ramesh was admitted in the hospital. On the following day he was referred to District Hospital, Sagar for X- ray and further treatment. There he breathed last on 30.4.1987. Dr. M.C. Jain (PW-16) performed the autopsy on the next day. Postmortem report is Ex.P.28.

During the course of investigation knife article 'B' was recovered from the possession of accused Dashrath alias Champa on the basis of the information supplied by him. Accused Govind also made a disclosure statement leading to recovery of lathi article 'D' and accused Satish made a statement leading to the recovery of rod article 'C'.

3. The three accused persons were tried. Seven witnesses were examined as eye-witnesses to further the prosecution version. They included the mother (PW-1) and grand mother (PW-22) of the deceased. The other five eye-witnesses produced were Laxmi Bai (PW-2), Asgari Begam (PW-4) and neighbours of the deceased and Santosh Singh (PW-17), Rakesh (PW-18) and Bittu (PW-19). But none of the witnesses admitted to having seen the incident. Therefore, the prosecution with the permission of the Court cross examined them. The trial Court was of the view that these witnesses were deliberately making false statements and concealing the truth. But the First Information Report (Ex.P10) was recorded by the Head Constable Santosh Kumar (PW-20) on the information given by the deceased. The said Head Constable had also recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). His statement is marked as Ex.P.32. Learned Additional Sessions Judge treated both the statements to be statements under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). Relying on those statements and the medical evidence, the trial Court found that Ramesh had died as a result of the injuries inflicted upon him by the accused persons. But since none of the injuries was found on the vital organs of the deceased it was held that the offence committed was covered under Section 304 Part I IPC. The accused persons challenged correctness of the judgment before the High Court by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the impugned order.

6. The factual scenario as borne out from the records is that the deceased was brought to District hospital, Bina where he was admitted for observation and treatment. Dr. Rajnish Shrivastava (PW-11) found 18 injuries on his person. The doctor in cross examination stated that the deceased was examined by him at 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon on 26.4.1987. At that time the patient had not gone in shock. It was later that shocks started developing resulting in fall of blood pressure and vomiting as was recorded in bed head ticket (Ex. P.17). The observation was recorded at 5.00 p.m. on 26.4.1987. The deceased was admitted in District Hospital, Sagar. The bed head ticket (Ex.P.27) shows that he was admitted in the hospital at 11.15 p.m. on 27.4.1987 and in the bed head ticket the general condition was recorded to be satisfactory and also that he was conscious. The deceased breathed his last three days later on 30.4.1987.

11. This is a case where the basis of conviction of the accused is the dying declaration. The situation in which a person is on deathbed is so solemn and serene when he is dying that the grave position in which he is placed, is the reason in law to accept veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides, should the dying declaration be excluded it will result in miscarriage of justice because the victim being generally the only eye-witness in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave the Court without a scrap of evidence.

14. There is no material to show that dying declarations were result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, they appear to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility.

15. In view of the factual scenario as analysed in the background and the principles set out above the inevitable conclusion is that the trial Court and the High Court were justified in finding the accused persons guilty. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. The appellants who are on bail shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence, if any.