Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. Now let us examine the second dying declaration of the deceased Sanjoy Halder recorded by SI R.P. Maity on 21.01.2013. The said dying declaration shows that the victim was asked some preliminary questions and answers are recorded as hereunder:-

"My name is Sanjoy Halder My father‟s name is Late Kundupada Halder My age is 46 years at present residing at 33/1A/11 Barwaritala Road, P.S. Beliaghata, Kolkata - 700010.
I have a gift item shop in footpath at B. Sarkar Bazar near Phoolbagan, Kali Mandir"

29. Now let us consider whether the second dying declaration is in conformity with the first dying declaration or not. It goes to show that both the dying declarations have categorically pointed out that Sanjoy Halder, the 2025:CHC-AS:1559-DB victim, did not commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil by himself. On the other hand, they indicated that there were persons "who poured inflammable oil on his body and thereafter set him on fire". In the first declaration the names of the assailants were not there but in the second declaration not only specific names but also the manner in which such offences were committed were vividly described.

30. To rely upon a dying declaration, the duty of the court is to ascertain whether the victim was mentally fit and alert to make such a statement. In the first dying declaration the doctor has categorically mentioned that the patient was conscious and oriented to time, place and person. This goes to show that at the relevant time the victim was mentally alert. The second dying declaration was taken immediately after recording of the first FIR in presence of the said Dr. Joyanta Biswas. It is true that there is no certificate in the second declaration that the victim was conscious and mentally alert to make such statement but as the said doctor a few minutes back in the medical record noted the condition of the patient regarding his mental alertness, non-recording of the same mental condition of the maker of the dying declaration once again in the second declaration, we think, that cannot be treated as serious lacuna in the prosecution case. Apart from that, the court has a duty to ascertain from the dying declaration itself whether or not the patient was conscious and alert to make such a statement. If we go through the initial statement of the victim in his second dying declaration we shall find that he correctly uttered his name and 2025:CHC-AS:1559-DB father‟s name. He has also correctly mentioned his age. Further, he has also correctly mentioned the residential address along with pin code. This goes to show that he was mentally alert to make such a statement. To fortify such observation we again peruse the said dying declaration once again. He has categorically stated the location of his gift shop in the footpath of B. Sarkar Bazar near Phoolbagan, Kali Mandir. He has not only mentioned that he has a gift shop, he has specifically mentioned the area and address where his gift shop was located. From such initial statements we find that the victim was mentally alert to make such statements.

31. It is also found that after recording such statements by the police officer he had read over and explained the same to the victim, and the victim admitted that the same was correctly recorded. Moreover, the said statement was recorded in presence of the doctor who examined the victim and recorded the victim‟s mental alertness in the hospital records immediately before the recording of the second dying declaration and the said doctor also supported the second dying declaration before the court as a witness. Now it is true that one LTI was taken in the said second dying declaration but the same was not marked as an exhibit since there is no signature of the identifier of the alleged LTI of the victim and for that reason alleged LTI of the victim was not marked as exhibit. However, in his deposition the I.O. SI R.P. Maity has categorically stated that the words „LTI‟ of Sanjoy Halder by the side of the alleged LTI of the victim in the exhibit-13 was written by him. As he has stated on oath that he was the identifier of the LTI of the victim in 2025:CHC-AS:1559-DB the exhibit-13 we do not find any legal predicament to accept the said LTI as the LTI of the victim Sanjoy Halder.