Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.82 seconds)

Anil Kumar vs State on 28 November, 2013

12. The learned Trial Court has very ably and comprehensively dealt with the above contentions raised by both the counsel for the appellants in the impugned judgment and we find no reason to record our disagreement with the same. The learned Trial Court is right in observing that the said statement of the victim Tirlok Chand proved on record as Ex. PW18/A was in the nature of a complaint but even then ASI Balbir Singh-PW18 took a precaution in first obtaining the opinion of the concerned doctor about the fitness of the injured. The learned Trial Court also rightly observed that there was no occasion for IO to record the dying declaration of the victim by calling the Magistrate as there was no danger to the life of injured Tirlok Chand and in the later period also no intimation was received by him that injured was in any precarious or serious condition. The learned Trial Court also rightly observed that it is only after the death of the Tirlok Chand that his statement Ex. PW-18/A became the dying declaration. To support his said reasoning, the learned Trial Court has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash & Anr. v. State of Haryana, reported CRL.A. Nos.456/1998, 481/1998 & 549/1998 Page 14 of 34 in 1987 AIR 2225 where in similar facts, the Apex Court took a view that in the cases where the police had initially recorded the statement in the nature of complaint, the same was later on treated as a dying declaration in case victim dies, if it discloses the cause of death of the victim. The learned Trial Court also observed that based on the said statement, FIR under Section 307 IPC was recorded and an endorsement to this effect was made by ASI on the said statement of Tirlok Chand which was proved on record as Ex. PW- 18/B. The learned Trial Court is also right in observing that the only precaution which IO could have taken was to record the statement of the injured after he was declared fit for statement. After having taken the said precaution, neither any fault nor any lapse can be attributed to the said ASI nor can any dispute be raised to the veracity of the statement made by the victim, Trilok Chand.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document
1