Crl.A. No. 803 of 2007 1

PART-II

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 803 of 2007

ROOP  RAM & ANR. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS   

STATE OF M.P.    .....   RESPONDENT    

O R D E R

This appeal arises out of the following facts:

On the 10th of September, 1991, the deceased Gajraj  

went  to  the  nallah  outside  village  Hydarganj  early  

morning to answer the call of nature.  Sometime later  

Kewal P.W. 2 was going towards his fields and as he  

passed  through  the  nallah  he  saw  Gajraj  lying  

unconscious with injuries on the stomach and the head.  

He raised an alarm on which Leela Kishan and Babu Lal  

PWs reached the spot.  They sent Pappu alias Ram Swaroop  

to the house of the injured Gajraj to inform his brother  

Hukum Singh PW 1 and his father Sukh Ram Singh PW 5 and  

sister Leelabai who all immediately rushed to the place.  

They  put  Gajraj  in  a  charpai  to  take  him  to  the  

District  Hospital,  Sehore.   While  on  the  way  Gajraj  

asked for water and on enquiry made by Hukam Singh PW 1  

he informed him as well as PW 5 and PW 11 that the  

appellants had beaten him and a short while later he  

lapsed into unconsciousness and died thereafter.  As per

Crl.A. No. 803 of 2007 2

the  prosecution  story,  there  was  enmity  between  the  

parties as the deceased Gajraj was suspected of having  

illicit relations with the  wife of appellant - Roop  

Ram.   A  First  Information  Report  was  lodged  under  

Section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants and  

they were brought to trial for the aforesaid offence.  

The trial court noted that the primary evidence against  

the accused were dying declarations made at one point of  

time to PW 1 Hukam Singh,  PW 5 Sukhram and PW 11 Babu  

Lal.   Reliance  was  also  placed  on  the  evidence  of  

doctors though they had given conflicting statements as  

to the time which would have elapsed between the receipt  

of the injuries and the death of the victim.  The trial  

court relying on this evidence, accordingly, convicted  

and sentenced the two accused under Section 302/34 of  

the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for  

life.  An appeal taken to the High Court by the accused  

was dismissed.  The accused are here before us after the  

grant of special leave.   

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

Crl.A. No. 803 of 2007 3

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 the 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.

Crl.A. No. 803 of 2007 4

..............................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

..............................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI      MARCH 29, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 803 of 2007 5

PART-I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 803 of 2007

ROOP  RAM & ANR. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

 STATE OF M.P.    .....   RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We have  heard the  learned counsel  for the  

parties.

Vide  our  separate  reasoned  order,  we  have  

allowed this appeal.  The appellants who are stated  

to be in custody shall be set at liberty forthwith  

if not required in connection with any other case.  

The reasoned order shall be separately placed  

on record.

    .........................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ........................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI

Crl.A. No. 803 of 2007 6

APRIL 13, 2011.