MUNNAWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. ETC

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 1202

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: H.S. BEDI, J.M. PANCHAL

Case summary

MUNNAWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. ETC.pdf

Judgment text

[2010] 5 S. C. R. 1202 A MUNNAWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF U. P. ETC. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1680-1682 of 2007) MAY 5, 2010 8 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J. M. PANCHAL, JJ. ] Penal Code, 1860: ss. 3021149 - Fire shot at victim - Death of victim after 5 days - Dying declaration recorded by C magistrate duly endorsed by doctor- Trial court convicted the accused u/s. 307 but acquitted them u/s. 302 on the ground that it was negligence on the part of doctor which led to septicemia and finally the death of victim - However, High Court convicted accused u/s.

3021149 - On appeal, held: o Injuries on the person of victim were grievous and sufficient to cause death as they were on sensitive parts of the body - Promptness in recording of FIR would belie the doubt as to the presence of eyewitness-informant at the place of incident - There were no suspicious circumstances with regard to the E dying declaration and no reasons spelt out as to why the two officers (magistrate and doctor) would falsely implicate· accused - Order of conviction not interfered with. Prosecution case was that the deceased, alongwith PW-1 and PW-2 was on way to court to attend a case. F Appellants anned with a pistol fired a shot at the deceased and thereafter ran away from the spot: The incident took place at 11. 15 A. M. The deceased was seriously injured and was taken to hospital and examined by the Doctor . PW-4 at 11. 35 A. M. FIR was lodged at 12 noon. PW-11, the (;. police officer recorded statement of the deceased.

Next day, statement of the deceased was recorded by Magistrate. After 5 days of the incident, deceased succumbed to injuries. Case was converted from one under Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. Trial Court H 1202 acquitted the appellants of offence under Section 302 IPC but convicted them under Section 307 IPC. Appellants filed appeals against conviction and the State filed appeal against acquittal of appellant of offence under Section 302. High Court convicted appellants for offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Hence the appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate gave full details as to the identity of the assailants, the weapons used, the site of the injury and the fact that he was brought to the hospital by a neighbour and his elder brother who were accompanying him at the time of incident.

The doctor, (PW 6) who was looking after the deceased when the dying declaration 0 was recorded gave a certificate that he was fully conscious and lucid at the time of its recording. The Magistrate also deposed that the deceased was fully conscious when the dying declaration was recorded by him. The submission that the injuries on the person of the deceased were so serious that the evidence of the Executive Magistrate endorsed by the Doctor with regard to the fitness of the deceased was a matter of suspicion, was without basis. There were no suspicious circumstances whatsoever with. regard to the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate and endorsed by the doctor and no substantial reas. ons were spelt out as to why these officers would favour the prosecution. The fact that the deceased died several days later, of septicemia brought about by the gunshot injury clearly showed that his condition was not overly critical or precarious when the dying declaration was recorded.

[Paras 4, 5] [1209-A-E; 1210-E-F] Balak Ram v. State of U. P. 1975(3) SCC 219; K. Ramachandra Reddy & Anr. v. The Public Prosecutor 1976(3) sec 618, referred to. 2. Prima facie, some delay had occurred for the delivery of the special report. , but that by itself would not be of any consequence more particularly as the incident, 8 as at that time, had not led to the death of the victim and case under Section 307 of the IPC was registered. The evidence of Doctor (PW-4) was that the injured was admitted to the hospital by his son, PW-1. The promptness of the FIR is a clear reflection of the fact that the two eye witnesses were present at the time of incident. It is also the admitted position that the deceased and party were on their way to attend a court hearing when they were attacked.

Those who are involved in serious criminal litigation seldom go alone to attend court 0 hearings, and are invariably accompanied by other persons as per the dictates of tradition and prudence in rural North India. Therefore, the presence of the two eye witnesses is accepted. [Paras 6, 7] [1211-B-D; 1212-A-D] 3. The injuries seemed to have been caused from a very close range as tattooing was pre! ient. The doctor also pointed that some of the injuries were grievous and were fatal to life and all the injuries were sufficient to ·cause death as they were on sensitive parts of the body and tha~ the injured was under severe shock, and had been given three units of blood at the time of his admission to hospital. In the light of such evidence, the trial court erred in concluding that it was the negligence on the part of the doctor which had led to septicemia and finally the death of the patient.

[Para 9] [1214-A-C] Case Law Reference: 1975(3) sec 219 referred to Para 2 1976(3) sec 618 referred to Para 2 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. (s). 1680-1682 of 2007. From the Judgment & Order dated 08. 08. 2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 4195 of 2002 & Criminal Revision No. 953 of 2002 & Criminal Appeal No. 2154 of 2002. Sushil Kumar, Manoj Prasad, Aditya Kumar for the Appellants. T. N. Singh, Rajiv Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra for the Respondent. The Judgment of fhe Court was delivered by HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as under: 1. On the 20th May 2000, Fateh Mohammad deceased, Mohammad Shamoon PW-1 and his elder brother Wali Mohammad PW-2 were on their way to Court for appearing in a case. They got down from the bus at about 11. 15 a. m.

at Mawana Bus Stand, Meerut and moved on towards the Courts and as they reached near the office of the Bus Union, Yaqoob and Manabbar and Qasim sons of Khuda Bux, Qasim son of Sanabbar and Zuber son of Manabbar, all residents of village Bisola, Police Station Evoli, armed with country made pistols, started firing at Fateh Mohammad. Mohammad Shamoon and Wali Mohammad ran towards the Sardhana Bus Stand to save their lives and in the meanwhile the assailants ran away from the spot. Fateh Mohammad, seriously injured, was admitted to Jaswant Rai Speciality Hospital, Saket, Meerut by Mohammad Shamoon and was examined by Or. Anil Kapoor PW. 4 at 11. 35 a. m. Mohammad Shamoon thereafter lodged a report at about 12 noon at Police Station, Civil Lines, Meerut at a distance of two furlongs from the place of incident. Sub-Inspector Dhani Ram Arya PW. 11 also visited the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured and the other witnesses including Wali Mohammad.

He also moved an application for recording the dying declaration of Fateh Mohammad which was duly recorded on the 21st May 2000 at 8. 15 p. m. by Shri Rajdev Singh, Additional City Magistrate, Meerut in the presence of Dr. t3 Narender Trivedi PW. 6. The Sub Inspector also visited the place of incident and made the necessary enquiries. Fateh Mohammad succumbed to his injuries on the 25th May 2000 and on receiving this information Sub-Inspector Subhash Chaudhary PW. 5 reached the hospital, drew up the inquest proceedings and sent the dead body for its post-mortem examination. The case was also converted from one under Section 307 to 302 of the IPC. On the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed with respect to Manabbar, Qasim and Zuber as Yaqoob had, in the meanwhile, absconded. The prosecution placed primary reliance on the evidence of the two eye witnesses, Mohammad Shamoon PW 1 and Wali Mohammad PW 2. Dr.

Anil Kapoor PW 4, who had examined Fateh Mohammad on 25th May 2000 at 11 :30 a. m. , Dr. N. Trivedi PW-6, who had certified Fateh Mohammad as being fit at the time of the reading of the dying declaration, Shri Rajdev Singh PW-10 aforementioned, Dhani Ram P ns with otht;! r persons. It is also the admitted position that Fateh Mohammad and party were on their way to attend a court hearing when they had been attacked. We must also observe that those who are C involved in serious criminal litigation seldom go alone to attend court hearings, and, are irivariably accompanied by other persons as per the dictates of tradition and prudence in rural North India. We must, therefore, accept the presence of the two eye witnesses PW's Shamoon and Wali Mohammad. D 8. Mr.

Sushil Kumar has also pointed out that the Sessions Judge had, in his judgment, acquitted the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC but had convicted them under Section 307 of the IPC and that in any E case this was the proper order to be made in the peculiar facts of the case. It has been submitted that the injuries had been suffered by Fateh Moh;:i'llmad on the 20th May 2000 but he had died on the 25th May 2000 and that as per the statement of PW Dr. N. K. Gupta, who had conducted the post-mortem of the F dead body, the death was due to septicemia on account of the infection caused by the injuries and that had Fateh Mohammad been given proper treatment, he may have survived. 'It has been pleaded that from the evidence of PW Dr.

Anil Kapoor, who had initially treated the injured at the Jaswant Rai Specialty G Hospital, it was apparent that the infection had set in on account of the lack of proper treatment and that in the light of this medical opinion the appellants were entitled to claim the benefit of doubt and plead that, if at all, a case under Section . 307 of the IPC was spelt out. We are of the opinion, however, that the trial court has ignored some basic issues. We have gone H [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. ] through the statement of the Dr. Ar)il K~poor who had noticed • the following injuries on the person of the Fateh Mohammad at the time of his admission io hospital: 1. Lacerated wound size of wound 2. 9. x 1. 0 ems fr,e$h ofeecfi-ng present. Depth not probed, with invdrted margins present at right side of chest 08. 0 ems from right nipple at 2. 00 o'clock position. Tattooing present in an area of 17. 0 x 4. 5 ems area. 2.

Tattooing without any wound present over right side of neck obliquely vertical in an area of 9. 0 cm~x 3. 0 ems upper end starting at the level of mastoid process, 04. 0 ems posterior to mastoid process. 3. Lacerated wound with inverted margins present over left side of face 5. 0 x 2. 0 ems x depth not probed. 2. 0 ems below left eye. Tattooing present around the wound in an area of 6. 0 x 5. 0 ems. Fresh bleeding present. 4. Lacerated wound with inverted margins present over back of left hand 13. 0 ems below left oleranon. process size 3. 0 ems x 1. 0 cm x depth not probed, freshbleeding present. Tattooing present in an area of 4. 0 x 3. 0 ems around wound. 5. Lacerated wound with everted margins present over antero-lateral size of left forearm size 1. 0 x 1. 0 ems x depth not probed fresh bleeding present. 6. Lacerated wound with everted margins 4 x 2 ems x depth not probed present over right scapular rg. 7. 0 ems from post. Axillary line fresh bleeding present. 7.

Lacerated wound with everted margins 1. 0 x 1. C ems x depth not probed present over left scapular rg. 6. 0 from mid line, fresh bleeding present. ... ------~,. -- 1214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 5 S. C. R. A 9. We see from the injuries that they had been caused from a very close range as tattooing was present. Dr. Anil Kapoor also pointed that injury Nos. 1, 3, 6 and 7 were grie\¢'us and were fatal to life and all the injuries were sufficientto cause death as they were on sensitive parts of the body and that the B injured was under severe shock, and had been given three units of blood at the time of his admission to hospital. In the light of this evidence,, we are unable to comprehend as to how the trial court could have concluded that it was the negligence on the part of Dr. Anil Kapoor which had led to septicemia and finally c to the death of the patient. We, therefore find;,;rio merit in these appeals. Dismissed. D. G. Appeals dismissed. (