- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Surajdeo Ojha And Others v. State Of Bihar .
Factual and Procedural Background
This is an appeal by special leave in which the appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 326/34 and 326/149 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years (as modified by the High Court). They were also convicted under Section 148 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.
The prosecution case, as reflected in the opinion, rested centrally on a dying declaration made by the deceased before a Sub-Inspector, which was treated as the First Information Report (FIR). The dying declaration was made within an hour of the assault while the deceased was fully conscious. The trial court (Sessions Judge) and the High Court both relied on this dying declaration, found it to be true, and also believed supporting eyewitnesses (referred to as Witnesses 1 and 3) who were mentioned in the dying declaration as having seen the occurrence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the dying declaration treated as the FIR was reliable and truthful despite the injuries sustained by the deceased.
- Whether alleged enmity between the parties undermined the prosecution case by suggesting false implication of the appellants.
- Whether there was any error of law in the judgments of the Sessions Judge and the High Court warranting interference in appeal by special leave.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Given the large number of injuries sustained by the deceased, he would not have been in a position to speak or make a dying declaration.
- There was serious enmity between the parties, which was suggested as a reason for implicating the appellants.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reviewed the judgments of both the High Court and the Sessions Judge and found no error of law. It identified the dying declaration (recorded by a Sub-Inspector and treated as the FIR) as the central piece of evidence and emphasized that it was made within an hour of the assault when the deceased was fully conscious. The Court noted that both lower courts had accepted the dying declaration as true and had also believed Witnesses 1 and 3, who were named in the dying declaration as eyewitnesses.
Addressing the contention that the injuries prevented the deceased from speaking, the Court examined the injuries itself and found no injury affecting the brain or heart. It considered the serious injuries to be on the abdomen and held that such injuries would not render the deceased immediately unconscious. The Court also relied on the nature of the statement, observing that it was a short statement describing the manner of assault and that the shortness of the statement itself appeared to be a guarantee of its truth. Additionally, the Court noted that the doctors who examined the deceased did not state that the injuries would have caused immediate unconsciousness. On these bases, the Court expressed full satisfaction as to the truth of the dying declaration.
On the plea of enmity and alleged false implication, the Court held that the courts below had fully considered the aspect of enmity and observed that enmity could also explain why the deceased was assaulted. It therefore found no merit in the appeal.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by special leave and upheld the convictions and sentences as modified by the High Court (RI for seven years under Sections 326/34 and 326/149, and three years' RI under Section 148).
The direct implication is that the appellants' convictions and sentences remained in force. The opinion does not indicate any broader legal implications or the laying down of a new precedent beyond affirming the lower courts' reliance on the dying declaration and the supporting eyewitness testimony on the facts of the case.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— In this appeal by special leave, the appellants have been convicted under Sections 326/34 and 326/149 and have been sentenced to RI for seven years as modified by the High Court. They were also convicted under Section 148 and sentenced to three years' RI. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and we do not find any error of law in this case.
2. The central evidence in this case consists of a dying declaration made by the deceased before the Sub-Inspector which has been treated as FIR. The dying declaration was made within an hour of the assault when the deceased was fully conscious. Both the courts below have relied upon the dying declaration and have held that the dying declaration is true. All the appellants are named in the dying declaration and even Witnesses 1 and 3 have been mentioned clearly as having seen the occurrence, in the said dying declaration. These witnesses have also been believed by the courts below.
3. Mr Mookherjee appearing in support of the appeal submitted that having regard to the large number of injuries sustained by the deceased, he would not be in a position to speak or give dying declaration. We have ourselves examined the injuries and we find that there was no injury which may have affected the brain or the heart and the only serious injuries are on the abdomen which will not make the deceased unconscious immediately. Moreover, the deceased has also given a short statement which is a proof of the manner in which the deceased was assaulted. The shortness of the statement itself, appears to be the guarantee of its truth. Even the Doctors who examined the deceased do not say, that having regard to the injuries, the deceased would have become unconscious immediately. In this view of the matter we are fully satisfied about the truth of the dying declaration.
4. It was then argued that there was serious enmity between the parties and that is why the appellants have been implicated. The courts below have fully considered this aspect of the matter and it was probably because of this enmity that the deceased was assaulted. We do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
Alert