1950 (10) TMI 26 - HC - Indian Laws

Death Sentence Upheld for One, Co-Appellants Acquitted Due to Doubt from Dying Declaration Absence.

Ram Bali and Ors. Versus State

Ram Bali and Ors. Versus State - TMI Issues Involved:1. Conviction under Section 302, Penal Code.2. Evidentiary value of dying declarations.3. Credibility and admissibility of witness testimonies.4. Examination of witnesses and cross-examination procedures.5. Role of the Sessions Judge in ensuring justice.6. Application of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code.7. Benefit of doubt in criminal cases.Detailed Analysis:1. Conviction under Section 302, Penal Code:The appellants, Ram Bali Singh, Harbans Singh, and Param Sukh Lal, were convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code, with Ram Bali Singh sentenced to death and the others to transportation for life. The prosecution's case was based on the events leading to the murder of Nankoo Singh, who was stabbed by Ram Bali Singh on the instigation of Harbans Singh and Param Sukh Lal.2. Evidentiary Value of Dying Declarations:The court considered the dying declarations made by Nankoo Singh. He consistently named Ram Bali Singh as his assailant in both his oral declaration immediately after the incident and the written declaration before the Magistrate. However, the written declaration did not mention the involvement of Harbans Singh and Param Sukh Lal, which created a reasonable doubt about their participation.3. Credibility and Admissibility of Witness Testimonies:The prosecution relied on the testimonies of several witnesses, including Katwaroo, Batuk Singh, and Sheikh Nazir Hasan. The court scrutinized the credibility of these witnesses, noting the improbability of Batuk Singh's presence at the scene and the questionable necessity of Nazir Hasan being at the location. The court emphasized that while the cross-examination of witnesses should be thorough, it must also be relevant and not protracted unnecessarily.4. Examination of Witnesses and Cross-Examination Procedures:The court criticized the excessive and irrelevant cross-examination conducted by the defense, which prolonged the trial unnecessarily. The proper use of statements recorded under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, for contradiction was discussed, emphasizing that omissions do not always equate to contradictions unless they are irreconcilable with the deposition in court.5. Role of the Sessions Judge in Ensuring Justice:The court underscored the responsibility of the Sessions Judge to actively ensure justice by considering the necessity of examining all relevant witnesses, even if not presented by the prosecution. The failure to examine Uma Shankar, suspected of complicity, was noted, but the court found that his testimony was not essential to the prosecution's case.6. Application of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code:The court addressed the importance of questioning the accused about all material evidence against them under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. It was noted that while specific questioning is not mandatory, it is crucial to ensure the accused is not prejudiced by any omission. In this case, the court found no prejudice resulted from the failure to specifically question the accused about the dying declarations.7. Benefit of Doubt in Criminal Cases:The court concluded that while the evidence against Ram Bali Singh was compelling and justified his conviction and sentence, the lack of mention of Harbans Singh and Param Sukh Lal in the dying declaration before the Magistrate created reasonable doubt about their involvement. Consequently, they were given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted.Conclusion:The court maintained the conviction and death sentence of Ram Bali Singh, dismissing his appeal. However, the appeals of Harbans Singh and Param Sukh Lal were allowed, their convictions and sentences were set aside, and they were acquitted. The judgment emphasized the importance of credible evidence, proper judicial procedures, and the necessity of ensuring no prejudice against the accused.