Brief Facts
- The State of Rajasthan filed the present criminal appeal challenging the judgment dated 20.08.1997 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran whereby the accused respondents were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC. The Complainant also filed a criminal revision petition assailing the same judgment.
- The prosecution case was that on 25.08.1993, the accused stabbed Narendra Singh (deceased) on the left side of his chest near Kota Road, Baran, allegedly with the aid of co-accused Bhanwar Singh.
- The deceased is stated to have made an oral dying declaration to his father (PW-3 Kan Singh) and thereafter succumbed to injuries. A knife was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
- The trial court, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt. During pendency of the appeal, co-accused Bhanwar Singh expired and the appeal abated qua him.
Issues
- Whether the alleged oral dying declaration and testimony of the prosecution witnesses were reliable and sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC?
- Whether the judgment of acquittal suffered from perversity, misreading of evidence, or omission of material evidence warranting interference in appeal and revision?
Held
- The Division Bench while examining the evidentiary value of an alleged oral dying declaration, the credibility of a solitary or chance eyewitness, the effect of non-examination of material witnesses and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh2023 INSC 758, Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab(1976) 4 SCC 369, Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersingh Chamansingh (2001) 6 SCC 145, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719, Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan[(2004)10 SCC 632, Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406, and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149, upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution evidence suffered from material contradictions which seriously undermined the credibility of key witnesses, particularly PW-3 and PW-7. The findings of the court are as under:
- The alleged oral dying declaration was found unreliable due to lack of corroboration, absence of a proven meeting place, and inconsistencies in witness conduct, rendering its veracity doubtful. The prosecution failed to establish a complete and coherent chain of events, did not examine material witnesses without satisfactory explanation, and relied on testimonies marked by unnatural conduct, prior animosity, and significant discrepancies. The alleged motive was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the recovery of the weapon remained unconnected with the incident.
- The burden was upon the prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, upon examining the material on record and appreciating both oral and documentary evidence, we find that the prosecution has failed to discharge this burden and prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Neither the alleged oral dying declaration has been duly proved, nor has the testimony of the solitary eyewitness has been found to be reliable. Suspicion however grave cannot take place of the proof.
Relevant Para No.
- 16, 18, 19, 20, 21,22 and 23