Summary
A college principal was shot in 1979 and died three days later. All three accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC, the courts treating the FIR he lodged at the police station as his dying declaration and relying on two eyewitnesses, his guard and his doctor. One accused died during the High Court appeal. The Supreme Court acquitted the two surviving appellants. The guard's account showed he had not seen the shooting, and both witnesses behaved unnaturally. There was doubt how the FIR was recorded and why it reached court only three days later. No blood was found where seven gunshot wounds were allegedly inflicted, and no cartridges, pellets or weapons were recovered or ballistics led. The FIR, made in a critical condition without fitness certification and inconsistent with a later statement, could not safely be treated as a dying declaration.
Issues
- Whether convictions for murder and attempted murder could rest on eyewitnesses whose presence and conduct were doubtful, without recoveries or blood at the alleged place of occurrence
- Whether an FIR lodged by the injured victim, inconsistent with his later statement to a magistrate, could safely be treated as a dying declaration
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions were set aside because the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 29, 30)
Held
- There was doubt whether the FIR was written by the deceased or dictated to the head constable, and it reached the court only three days after registration. The guard's own account showed he had not witnessed the firing, and his claims of thumb-marking the FIR and his movements that evening were false or improbable. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The doctor-witness, with only simple injuries, went home and then to the police station instead of taking the gravely injured principal to hospital. That conduct was unnatural. (¶ 19)
- No blood was found on the chair or floor where seven gunshot wounds were allegedly inflicted, and the blood-stained cloth was not produced. This casts serious doubt on the place of occurrence, and the omission was fatal. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Not recovering empty cartridges, pellets or weapons, and not examining a ballistic expert, compounded the doubts. (¶ 23)
- The second statement to the magistrate, with its many additions, was rightly rejected. But the FIR, recorded while the victim was semi-conscious and critical, without a fitness certificate, in doubtful circumstances and inconsistent on motive, place and persons present, could not safely be treated as a dying declaration either. Inconsistent dying declarations call for caution. (¶¶ 24, 27, 28)
Result
Appeals allowed; the convictions and sentences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside and the appellants acquitted, with bail bonds discharged.