ROOP RAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This appeal arises out of the following facts:

(2.) As would be apparent the only evidence against the appellants is the dying declaration made to PW-1, PW-5 and PW-11. The question that arises is whether the deceased was in a position to make a statement and whether such a statement had in fact been made. We have examined the prosecution story and find it to be highly unnatural. As per the evidence on record, Kewal PW had seen Gajraj lying in an injured condition in the nallah and he had thereafter called the other witnesses from their residence. As per the prosecution story Gajraj had been unconscious at the time when he had been found but he became conscious for a very short time on having some water, made his declaration and then again became unconscious and ultimately died while he remained in that condition. To our mind, this story lacks credibility. It is also relevant that PW-11 Babulal is the brother-in-law of Roop Ram-appellant as his sister Sahodrara Bai was married to him. It has come in defence that Babulal was annoyed with Roop Ram as his wife was not being permitted to return home. PWs-1 and 5 are father and son and are the closest relatives of the deceased. Some corroboration for the dying declaration could perhaps have been found in the medical evidence. Dr. Nayazi and Dr. Satpathi who had examined the dead body were discrepant with regard to the time lag between the causing of injuries and the time of death. This makes it difficult to believe that Gajraj had been in a condition to make his statement. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. We, accordingly, allow the appeal direct their release forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.