UMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principle on which the dying declarations are admitted in evidence is indicated in the legal maxim "Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire" i.e. a man will not meet his Maker with a lie in his mouth"

(2.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assailing the judgment dated 9.11.2011 and order on sentence dated 15.11.2011, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No. 110/10, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition to the above, the appellant was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for six months.

(3.) MR . Vivek Sood, learned counsel for the appellant -Umesh, submits the judgment and order on sentence passed by learned trial court are bad in law, the same are based on surmises, conjectures and perverse in nature. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has not based the judgment on credible and unimpeachable evidence. Counsel contends that there was no ocular witness in this incident and the prosecution has completely relied upon the dying declarations and circumstantial evidence. It is next contended that the dying declarations are highly doubtful and not recorded in the presence of any magistrate. The trial court has not taken into account the judgment passed by the Apex Court that dying declaration ought to be carefully evaluated to find out its authenticity. Mr. Sood contends that it is unclear from the evidence as to whether the deceased had at all named the appellant or not. It is also urged that the Apex Court has laid down that where there is no eye witness, all the circumstances made out against the accused should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and the same ought to be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is the person, who is guilty of the offence.