Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases entitled 'Narain Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana' ; and 'State of Haryana v. Mange Ram and Ors.' reported in 2003 Cr.L.J. 830, has laid down the test, which is also laid down in case entitled 'Paras Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar' reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 644, paras 8 & 9 of the judgment read as under:

8. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Investigating Officer has not bothered to record the dying declaration of the deceased nor the dying declaration is recorded by the Doctor. The Doctor is also not examined to establish that the deceased was conscious and in a fit condition to make the statement. It is true that there is negligence on the part of Investigating Officer. On occasions, such negligence or omission may give rise to reasonable doubt which would obviously go in favour of the accused. But, in the present case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was conscious and he was removed to the hospital by us. All the witnesses deposed that the deceased was in a fit state of health to make the statements on the date of incident. He expired only after more than 24 hours. No justifiable reason is pointed out to disbelieve the evidence of number of witnesses who rushed to the scene of offence at Ghogha Chowk. Their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity which would render the dying declarations as doubtful or unworthy of the evidence (credence). In such a situation, the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused, may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to quote the following observations of this Court from the case of Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar , at P. 1653:
In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.
9. In this view of the matter with regard to Paras Yadav, in our view, there is no reason to disbelieve the oral dying declaration as deposed by number of witnesses and as recorded in fardbeyan of deceased Sambhu Yadav. The fardbeyan was recorded by the Police Sub-Inspector on the scene of occurrence itself, within few minutes of the occurrence of the incident. Witnesses also rushed to the scene of offence after hearing hulla gulla. The medical evidence as deposed by PW-11 also corroborates the prosecution version. Hence, the Courts below have rightly convicted Paras Yadav for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C.