PREM SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of this appeal as well as Criminal Appeal Nos. 692 of 1970 regarding Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab and 693 of 1970 regarding Bukan Singh v. State of Punjab.

(2.) DAULAT Singh (since deceased) was brother of Jagga Singh, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 692 of 1970 and Bahal Singh The appellant and Bukan Singh, who it appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 1970, are sons of Jagga Singh. Shrimati Ram Kaur is the wife of Daulat Singh and Phuman Singh is his son. All of them resided in village -Mahalam, which is about 6 kilometres from Jalalabad. The house occupied by Daulat Singh, his wife Shrimati Ram Kaur and son Phuman Singh, was located In the vicinity of the house wherein the appellant, his brother and their father resided. These houses had a common court -yard. The house of Bahal Singh, was also located near by. In or about the month of April, 1969, some bushels of wheat crop, belonging to some persons, had been stolen and the same were recovered from the house occupied by the appellant, his brother and father -Jagga Singh. The appellant, his brother Bukan Singh and their father -Jagga Singh suspected that the information, which led to the recovery of the said bushels of wheat crop from their house, had been furnished to the owners of the same by Bahal Singh. About 20 days thereafter, Bukan Singh had caused injuries with kirpan to Bahal Singh. Daulat Singh then intervened and had taken Bahal Singh to the hospital but did not allow him to report the matter to the police and further brought about a compromise between them, viz., Bukan Singh and Bahal Singh, because they were closely related to him. According to the said compromise, Bukan Singh had agreed to pay Rs. 200/ - to Bahal Singh by way of compensation for the injuries caused to him (Bahal Singh) and he had paid Rs, 50/ -, out of the said amount, to him and promised to pay the remaining amount (i.e. Rs. 150/ -) on a future date, Daulat Singh had then stood surety for payment of the said amount of Rs. 150/ - by Bukan Singh to Bahal Singh.

(3.) EXHIBIT P. 16 has taken the form of dying declaration, after the death of Daulat Singh, and it has attained the status of substantive evidence. It is said that truth sits on the tongue of a dying man Therefore, when there is absolutely no doubt that the deceased had good opportunity of knowing who the assailant was and could not have been mistaken about his identity, and there is no possible reason for his falsely accusing him as responsible for causing injury or injuries which later proved fatel to him, dying declaration would constitute good evidence and may, by itself, form safe basis for conviction. Undoubtedly, there has been the rule, which is more or pruderce than of law that it is ordinarily unsafe to record conviction on the mere statement of the dead man. The evolution of the said rule is due to the circumstances that it (the dying declaration) cannot be tested by cross -examination of its maker and some time it is not made on oath. Legally, however it cannot be gainsaid that it stands on the same footing as any other evidence. The necessity for its corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of dying declaration as a piece of evidence, but from the fact that, in a given ca e, the Court may feel that it would not be safe to act upon it unless there is some reliable corroboration of the same. Generally, dying declaration should be taken as a whole, but there seems no bar in law to rely on that portion of dying declaration which is found to be true and is further corroborated by other evidence and circumstances of the case and to reject the rest which is untrue. In the case regarding Kishan Singh Munsha Singh v. The State : A.I.R. 1963 P&H. 170, the question as to whether it is legally permissible to accept and to reject in part a dying declaration was left undecided (vide its paragraph 15). The observation that - -