Heard.
The present appeal is filed by the State of Rajasthan questioning the order
passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench directing
acquittal of the respondent. The respondent Ashfaq Ahmed faced trial for alleged
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (in
short 'IPC'). Learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Kota found the respondent
accused guilty and convicted him for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
The High Court by the impugned order directed acquittal.
The High Court noticed that the Parcha bayan (Ext. P1) purported to
have been recored by the Investigating
Officer Shri Rajendra Prasad (PW-23) was not a dying declaration and was not
sufficient to hold the accused guilty particularly when the father of the deceased who
was examined as PW 5 categorically stated that the deceased was not in a condition
to make any statement. PW-23 admitted that there was no record to show that the
Doctor opined that the deceased was in a condition to make a statement. PW-23 only
stated that he had taken the oral consent of the Doctor who was attending the
patient. Unfortunately the said Doctor Shri Laxmi Nath Meena who was examined
PW1 has not indicated any thing about the condition of the deceased to make a
statement or about the so-called oral consent. On the contrary Dr. G.S. Bishnar who
was a member of the Medical Board categorically stated that when the Medical
Board examined the deceased, the condition of the patient was so critical that it was
even impossible to examine his injuries medically. PW 1 stated that the condition of
the deceased was serious and therefore he was referred to Kota hospital and he
reached the hospital after PW-23 had reached the hospital and started recording the
statement of the deceased. Since that was the only evidence on which the
conviction was recorded by the trial court, the High Court was justified in reversing
the judgment of conviction and
directing acquittal. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court to
warrant interference. The appeal fails and dismissed.
New Delhi, March 04, 2009.