Dying Declaration Need Not Be Addressed To Particular Individual: Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Of Man Accused Of Killing Brother
|The Orissa High Court dismissed an Appeal of a man who was convicted by the Trial Court for the alleged murder of his brother.
The Orissa High Court observed that Dying Declaration need not be addressed to a particular individual.
The Court observed thus in an Appeal filed by a man who was convicted by the Trial Court for the alleged murder of his brother.
A Division Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Savitri Ratho held, “The dying declaration is a substantive evidence only for the reason that a person in acute agony is not expected to tell a lie and in all probability, it is expected from such person to disclose the truth and an order of conviction can be safely recorded on the basis of dying declaration, if the Court is fully satisfied that the declaration made by the deceased was voluntary, true and reliable and in such case, no further corroboration can be insisted. Dying declaration need not be addressed to a particular individual and we find there is no suspicious feature in such evidence in the case in hand and there is no infirmity in it.”
Advocate Radharaman Das Nayak appeared for the Appellant/Accused while Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Jateswar Nayak appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant-accused along with his wife faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It was alleged that in 2009, they committed murder of the deceased i.e., the Appellant’s brother in furtherance of their common intention. It was further alleged that they caused certain evidence to disappear by removing the dead body in a gunny bag with an intention to screen themselves from legal punishment. The Trial Court acquitted the co-accused i.e., the Appellant’s wife but found the Appellant guilty under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Challenging his conviction, he was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of the appellant at the spot, after committing the crime till the arrival of P.W.13 and P.W.16, is a doubtful feature, cannot be accepted.”
The Court was of the view that the reaction of an accused after committing the crime may vary from person to person and in this case, the Appellant remained at the spot and made every effort to cause disappearance of evidence by packing the dead body in the gunny bag and shifting the same inside the jungle in a cycle.
“Therefore, his presence at the spot after committing the crime seems to be for a particular purpose i.e. to cause disappearance of evidence from the scene of crime and in the meantime he could got noticed by P.W.13 and P.W.16”, it added.
The Court further noted that whatever the deceased shouted after being assaulted by the Appellant that he was being killed by the Appellant and further shouted to save him, can certainly be relied upon as dying declaration of the deceased.
“P.W.4 has stated that a fortnight prior to the incident, there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased relating to a mango tree which situated near the house of the appellant, but falling to the share of the deceased. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no motive on the part of the appellant, cannot be accepted”, it also observed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Trial Court has rightly found the Appellant guilty of the offences charged.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction.
Cause Title- Daktar Bhoi v. State of Odisha (Case Number: JCRLA No.21 of 2010)