Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. There was very little direct evidence against the accused No. 1 but the prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence which, according to it, pointed inevitably to the conclusion that the offence had been committed by him.

These circumstances were that there was ill-will between the accused No. 1 and the deceased, that the accused No. 1 wag seen by several disinterested witnesses at the time and the place of the incident, that immediately after the incident the accused No. 1 was seen running away from the spot, that he was absconding and did not make his appearance till three months later, that the deceased made a dying declaration though incomplete at about 11-45 p.m. the same day, about an hour and a half after the incident, that this dying declaration was corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 20 Range Gowda, P.Ws. 14, 15 and 16, that a rag, M.O. 5 which was said to be smelling of gun-powder, was picked up near about the hedga close to the scene of the incident and that' they all led to the conclusion that the deceased sustained an injury by a gun-shot and that shot was fired by the accused No. 1 that night.

Range Gowda then flashed his torchlight and proceeded towards the place where the deceased lay and while he was proceeding there he saw the accused No. 1 running towards the masjid with a gun in his hand. P.Ws. 18 and 19 stated that they heard the gun-shot and saw accused No. 1 immediately thereafter running towards the tank. The evidence of these witnesses was corroborated by P.Ws. 14, 15 and 16 who stated that the deceased shouted after the incident that Sattar had shot him.

A piece of cloth, M.O. 5, said to be smelling of gun-powder was seen close to the scene of the incident. Cloth of this type was employed as a wad to secure the muzzle of a gun before the shot was fired from the gun. There was also the dying declaration of the deceased which, though incomplete due to the weakness of the deceased definitely stated that it was the accused No. 1 who had shot him with the gun.

No such questions were, however, addressed in the cross-examination to the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination and the statements in his evidence: "I was of opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of gunshot wounds" and "all these injuries may be caused by a single shot" stood unchallenged. We are of the opinion that, on the evidence as it stood, it was not open to the appellant ' to urge that ground before us.

11. It was further urged on behalf of of the appellant that the dying declaration of the deceased was an incomplete document and, therefore, could not be used against him.

We are of the opinion that these observations do not help the appellant at all. In the dying declaration before us, even though the same was incomplete by reason of the deceased not being able to answer further questions in his then condition, the statement so far as they went to implicate the accused No. 1 in the affair were quite categoric in character and they definitely indicated that it was the accused No. 1 who had shot the deceased.

There was no question of any incomplete statement so far as that aspect of the case was concerned. The statement in regard to the accused No. 1 having shot the deceased was complete in itself and it could not be said that any further questions would have elicited any information which would run counter to the same. Under the circumstances, the dying declaration, though incomplete otherwise, was complete so far as the accused No. 1 having shot the deceased was concerned and could certainly be relied upon by the prosecution.