Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's acquittal, holding that the dying declaration was unreliable and the eyewitness testimony was not credible, thereby granting the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Summary

The case involved a murder under Section 302 IPC where the prosecution relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, Atul Prakash Shukla, and the testimony of the sole eyewitness, Anil Prakash Shukla. The deceased gave his statement to the investigating officer twenty days after the incident, claiming he had been tutored by family members to give a false account, and the magistrate who recorded the declaration was not produced for cross‑examination. The High Court found the dying declaration unreliable and also disbelieved the eyewitness because he was not a natural witness, had animosity towards the accused, and his trial‑court testimony differed from the FIR. Consequently, the High Court acquitted the accused, Arvind Shukla. The Supreme Court upheld this acquittal, agreeing that both the dying declaration and the eyewitness testimony were unreliable, and therefore the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

Issues considered

Whether the dying declaration recorded before the magistrate is admissible and reliable given the lack of cross‑examination and alleged tutoring of the deceased.
Whether the sole eyewitness's testimony is trustworthy despite inconsistencies with the FIR and alleged animosity towards the accused.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

murderdying declarationeyewitness testimonybenefit of doubtacquittalIndian Penal Codeevidencecross‑examinationreliability

Judgment

. ANIL PRAKASH SHUKLA AND ORS .
v.
ARVIND SHUKLA AND ANR.
A

MAY I, 2007

(S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860:
)
s. 302-Murder-Prosecution case based on alleged dying declaration
and testimony of sole eye-witness-Enmity between complainant and c
accused-Victim died several days after incident-Contradictions in testimony
ofsole eye-witness-Dying declaration before Magistrate recorded after victim
was alleged to have been tutored-Magistrate not examined-Held: High
Court rightly acquitted the accused

Evidence:
D

Dying declaration-Veracity of-Victim who died after several days of
incident, told the I. 0. that prior to this statement being recorded before the
Magistrate, he was tutored by his brother and father-Magistrate not
examined-Held, High Court rightly disbelieved the dying declaration. E
Eye-witness-Contradictions in statements of the sole eye-witness-
Held, High Court rightly held that after coming to know of medical report,
witness before trial courts improved his version given in FIR.

Respondent-accused in both the appeals was on inimical terms with PW-
F
I, the complainant, and his brother, the deceased. On the day of incident when
PW-1, and his brother, after taking a round in the market, were returning to
their house, the accused along with two other persons, appeared there and
gave one knife blow on the brother of PW-1. Initially, a case under section
307 IPC was registered against the accused and when the victim died, after
several days of the incident, the case was converted into one under s. 302 G
IPC. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW-1, the sole eye-
, witness, and the alleged dying declaration of the decea3ed. The trial court
convicted the accused of the offence charged. On appeal, the High Court
acquitted him. Aggrieved, the complainant filed Crl. Appeal No. 830 of2002
1053 H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A and the State filed Crl. Appeal No. 932/2002. ~.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. As regards the alleged dying declaration, it has been pointed
out by the High Court that the Magistrate before whom the said dying
B declaration was said to have been recorded, was not produced as a witness
before the trial court and hence the accused did not have an opportunity to
cross-examine the Magistrate. Moreover, the deceased died several days after
the incident. Deceased stated before the Investigating Officer 20 days after
the incident that he had been tutored to give an incorrect statement before
r
the Magistrate. In the circumstances, the High Court rightly disbelieved the
c dying declaration. [Para 7] [1066-F-G]

2. With regard to the evidence of PW-1, the sole eye-witness, the High
Court has pointed Jut that he was not a natural witness as per his own showing
and he had animosity against the accused. His presence at the scene of
D occurrence was by a sheer chance. Apart from that, there is inconsistency
between his version given in the FIR and his statement as PWl before the
trial court. In the FIR it is only stated that the accused inflicted a knife blow
on the deceased, but his deposition before the trial court, PW-1 stated that
the accused inflicted knife blows on the deceased while the other person also
inflicted knife blow on him. As rightly held by the High Court, the statement
E of PW-1 in the court is an improvement on the version given in the FIR.
[Para 9, 10 and 11] (1057-8-F]
The High Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused.
[Para 12)

F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 830 of
2002.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2002 of the High Court
of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 1981.

G WITII
{
Crl. A. No. 932 of2002.

P.N. Mishra, Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Girdhar G.
Upadhyay, Vinita G. Upadhyay, Asha Upadhyay, Sahdev Singh, Fuzail Khan,
-.
H Javed M. Rao and Musharraf Chawdhry for the Appellant.
ANILPRAKASHSHUKLA v. ARVINDSHUKLA[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.] J055
V.I(. Shukla, Anil Pandey and K.K. Mohan for the Respondent. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
......
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. These two appeals have been filed against
the impugned judgment dated 1.3.2002 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 482 of 1981. B
2. One of the appeals has been filed by the complainant and the other
by the State Government.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR lodged by Anil Prakash
c
Shukla (PW!) was that about 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence in question
Atul Prakash Shukla, brother of the first informant was beaten by accused
Arvind Shukla and despite having assaulted him, accused Arvind tried to
implicate Atul Prakash in a false case but could not succeed. Since then Atul
Prakash Shukla and Arvind were on inimical terms. It was further alleged that D
on 21.10.1979 first informant Anil Prakash Shukla and his brother Atul Prakash
Shukla, deceased in this case, were going to their residential house after
taking a round in the market and when they were in front of the house of
Shyam Babu Sharma in Mohalla Gumti Qasba Auriya accused Arvind @
Pappu and Virendra Dubey suddenly appeared there. They cried that Atul be E
killed whereupon accused Arvind gave one knife blow on Atul. He ran crying
and fell down on the Chabutra of Shyam Babu Sharma. Besides the first
information, the incident was witnessed by Dinesh Shukla, Ramesh Kumar
Tripathi and Laljee Chaurasiya and the accused persons were identified by
electric light. The accused persons ran away when challenged. Anil Prakash
along with the witnesses came on the Chabutra where Atul was lying injured. F
He sent Laljee Chaurasiya to call his father who immediately arrived there and
asked Anil Prakash Shukla to lodge the report. He also carried Atul to the
police station in a rickshaw leaving Anil Prakash (PW!) on the spot. Anil
Prakash Shukla scribed the report Ext. Ka I and lodged the same at police
station Auraiya at 8.10 P.M. The police Station was situated only at a distance
G
of about 3 furlongs from the place of occurrence. On the written report of Anil
c·
Prakash Shukla, a case under Section 307 IPC was registered against Arvind
Shukla, Virendra Dubey and Anil @ Pappu in the General Diary at SI. No. 36,
which also indicates that injured Atul had reached the police station along
with the first informant Anil Prakash Shukla. Injured Atul was sent to Hallet
Hospital, Kanpur with Constable 536 Ram Prakash who also carried with him H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 5 S.C.R.

A the Chithi Majroomi. On account of a strike, Atul could not be admitted in
~
Hallet Hospital, therefore, he was taken to Ursula Hospital, Kanpur. Atul's
father (PW2) Ram Sewak Shukla accompanied Atul when he was taken to
Kanpur in a bus.

5. Dr. S.N. Sharma (PW6) of Ursula Hospital examined the injuries of
B Atul at 11 P.M. on 21.10.1979 and found the following injuries:-
0 Incised wound 3.00 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on left side of scalp
7.0 cm above left ear.
ii) Incised wound 2 1/2 cm x 2.00 cm x I 1/2 cm on front of left
c shoulder joint
iii) Incised wound 3.00 cm x I 1/2 cm x cavity of abdomen deep on
right side of abdomen about 7.00 cm above umbilicus. X-ray
advised.
iv) Incised wound 4.00 cm x 2 1/2 cm x 2.00 cm on middle aspect of
D front of left forearm about 5.00 cm below left elbow.
v) Incised wound 4 1/2 cm x 2 1/2 cm x 2.00 cm about I cm below
the medial of injury No. 4.
..
6. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the sole eyewitness
Anil Prakash Shukla (PW!) as well as the alleged dying declaration of the
E
deceased Atul. The question is whether these should be believed or not.

7. As regards the alleged dying declaration before the Magistrate (Ex.
Kha I), it has been pointed out by the High Court that the Magistrate before
whom the said dying declaration was said to have been recorded, was not
F produced as a witness before the learned Sessions Judge and hence the
accused did not have an opportunity to cross examine the Magistrate.
Moreover, it may be mentioned that the deceased died several days after the
'
incident. Deceased Atul Prakash stated before the Investigating Officer on
9.11.1979 i.e. 20 days after the incident that he had been tutored to give an
incorrect statement before the Magistrate. The Magistrate was neither cited
G as a witness in the charge-sheet nor produced at the trial. Hence, the High
Court disbelieved the dying declaration.
"'
8. We fully agree with the view taken by the High Court that under the
circumstances the alleged dying declaration made before the Magistrate is
unreliable. Atul Prakash stated before the Investigating Officer on 9.11.1979
H
ANIL PRAKASH SHUKLA v. ARVINDSHUKLA[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.] 1057

• that while he was brought in a bus to Kanpur he was tutored by his father, A
brother and other accompanying persons to give a distorted and incorrect
version about the incident.

9. As regards the evidence of the sole eyewitness, that too, has been
disbelieved by the High Court. As pointed out by the High Court, Anil
Prakash (PWI), was not a natural witness as per his own showing and he had B
animosity against Arvind Shukla. His presence at the scene of occurrence
was by a sheer chance. Anil (PWI) and Atul (deceased) left their homes
t separately. Anil had not accompanied the deceased nor any programme was
prefixed regarding the time of his coming back. He admitted in his deposition
before the Court that it was by a sheer co-incidence that the deceased met
him in front of the shop of doctor Ram Babu Bajpai. His house was undoubtedly
c
situated at a far distance from the place of occurrence and hence his presence
at the scene of occurrence was by a sheer chance.

I0. Apart from that, there is inconsistency between the version given
in the FIR and the statement of Anil Prakash (PWI) before the trial court. In D
the FIR it is only stated that accused Arvind inflicted a knife blow on Atul,
but in his deposition before the trial court, PWI stated that accused Arvind
• inflicted knife blows on Atul while Anil @ Pappu also inflicted knife blow on
Atul. Thus the statement in court is an improvement on the version given in
the FIR in which it was only stated that Arvind above inflicted a knife blow
on Atul, but there was no mention in the FIR that Anil @ Pappu also inflicted E
knife blows on Atul.

11. As rightly held by the High Court, it seems that after coming to
know of the medical report for the first time at the trial court, the witnesses
improved their version given in the FIR.
,. (
F
12. The High Court has given the benefit of doubt to accused Arvind
Shukla and we see no reason to take a different view. The appeals are
accordingly dismissed.

RP. Appeals dismissed.
G