Prison vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 December, 2012
It is submitted that since the so called first
statement was not produced on record by the prosecution and
was not before the Court, an adverse inference ought to have
been drawn by the Trial Court on account of suppression of
4/14
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:29:05 :::
5
(Apeal 1320 of 2006)
the first dying declaration. It was then submitted that the
endorsement of the doctor was made not at the bottom or at
the top of the dying declaration but it appears to have been
taken after the statement was recorded and therefore, it
creates a doubt about the authenticity of the said
endorsement. The learned counsel for the Appellant has
relied on the two judgments of the Apex Court in support of
his submissions viz. in the case of Arjun Prajapati vs. State
of Bihar and Others [(2001) 9 Supreme Court cases 252]
and in the case of Dalip Singh and Others vs. State of
Punjab [(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 332]. Lastly, it was
submitted that the prosecution has not produced the letter
which was written to the Special Executive Magistrate,
asking him to remain present for the purpose of recording
the dying declaration. It is submitted that all these infirmities
are fatal to the prosecution case and on that ground, the
order of conviction is liable to be set aside and quashed.