Narender Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Dehi
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34 , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32
Dying Declaration - Plea that the dying declaration did not contain either the signature or thumb impression of the deceased which is in violation of the guidelines issued by the High Court of Delhi in regard to the recording of dying declaration - Held that it was only a guideline issued by the High Court in order to ensure that any defect in regard to the identity of the deceased or the veracity of the contents of the dying declaration are not doubted on the ground that the concerned patient himself could not have made such a statement in order to implicate someone in the offence - Merely because there was a defect in following the said guideline which is of a trivial nature and if the dying declaration recorded is otherwise proved by ample evidence, both oral as well as documentary, on the ground of such trivial defects, the whole of the dying declaration cannot be thrown out. - Dying declaration was proved in the manner known to law and, therefore, there is no scope to reject the same.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34 , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32
Dying Declaration - Plea that the patient was administered pathedine injection for the pain and suffering that he was undergoing by around 11.30 a.m. and that the effect of pathedine would remain at least for four hours and, therefore, the deceased could not have been in a position to give evidence coherently repelled -Doctor who was present and who permitted PW-7 to record the dying declaration was examined as PW-12 - Doctor in his evidence stated that when he examined the patient at 12.15 p.m. he found the deceased in a fit condition to make statement and thereafter he called upon PW-2 to summon the Magistrate - Doctor PW-12 also explained that normally the effect of pathedine injection would last for 3-4 hours depending upon the severity of the pain - According to him when the dying declaration was recorded by PW-7 the deceased was in a fit condition to make a statement - Having regard to the said statement of PW-12, which was also corroborated in every respect by PW-7 who has made an endorsement in the dying declaration itself that the patient was fully conscious and capable of making his statement and the said witnesses are official witnesses one of whom, namely, PW-12 is an expert witness, no reason to disbelieve their version.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34 , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32
Murder - Dying Declaration - Plea that that the identity of the deceased was not verified by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate PW-7- Evidence of PW-7 the learned Magistrate stated that PW-12 Dr. identified the patient to him though he had not obtained the identification of the patient in writing from PW-12 - That apart, in the initial part of the evidence he has narrated as to how PW-2 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police approached him to record the dying declaration of the deceased, that he was accompanied by PW-2 to the hospital, that he was taken to the patient - After preliminary orientation and after satisfying himself that the patient was fully conscious and was capable of making the statement and making an endorsement vide PW-7/D and also after getting it endorsed it by PW-12 he proceeded to record exhibit PW-7/C, the dying declaration of the deceased - Held that there is no doubt about the verification of the identity of the patient/deceased - and, therefore, we do not find any substance in the said submission.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34
Plea of Alibi - Plea to the effect that between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on 5.8.2023 appellant was in the Central Excise Laboratory as he was directed to deposit a substance for test in the said laboratory where he had to stay back between 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. - Even going by the version of those witnesses he was found in the office of excise laboratory after 10.30 a.m. until 2 p.m. - According to the deceased, he was burnt at the instance of the appellants just about 10.30 a.m. in the quarter No.4 of police post -. Therefore, prior to 10.30 a.m. the whereabouts of the accused 'O' were not surely stated - He was assigned the task of taking the sample at 9.40 a.m. - Therefore, between 9.40 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. the location of the said accused was not shown to have been in a different place other than the place of occurrence - That apart, the trial Court has noted that the excise laboratory at battery line was just 5-6 minutes' drive from the police post - Trial Court made a detailed analysis of this issue and has rightly found that there was no truth in the claim of alibi of the second appellant 'O'.
Topic(s)-Murder - Dying Declaration - Conviction Upheld