Holding

The High Court's acquittal is justified; the Judicial Magistrate's dying declaration is admissible and the eye‑witness testimonies are unreliable, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The deceased Veeraganesh was stabbed by four accused and later died. Two eye‑witnesses (PW‑1 and PW‑2) testified to the assault but their conduct—leaving the victim and failing to report the incident until police interrogation—was deemed implausible. The victim gave two dying declarations: one before a Judicial Magistrate (which did not name the assailants) and another before a constable (which named them). The FIR was based on the latter. The trial court convicted the accused under IPC s.302; the Madras High Court acquitted them, finding the eye‑witnesses unreliable and doubting the constable’s dying declaration. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s reasoning, accepting the Judicial Magistrate’s dying declaration and rejecting the constable’s statement, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the dying declaration recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, which does not identify the accused, is admissible and sufficient to exonerate the accused.
Whether the dying declaration recorded by the constable, naming the accused, is reliable given procedural irregularities.
Whether the testimony of the two eye‑witnesses is credible in view of their alleged conduct.
Whether a conviction under IPC s.302 can be sustained on the basis of the contested evidence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 32
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 302, s. 307

Subjects

murderdying declarationeye‑witness credibilityacquittalcriminal appealIPC 302evidence

Judgment

[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1046

A THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY OF
GOVERNMENT
v. ,._
~
SUBAIR @ MOHAMED SUBAIR AND ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2002)
B
DECEMBER 18, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

c Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Two eye- ~
witnesses - Two dying declarations: one made before Judicial
Magistrate and the other made before constable - In the dying
declaration made before the Magistrate names of accused not
mentioned while the same mentioned in the other dying
declaration - FIR registered on the basis of dying declaration
D made before the constable - Conviction by trial court - On
· appeal, held: Acquittal justified - Evidence of eye-witnesses
doubtful in view of their conduct - Dying declaration made
before Judicial Magistrate deserves acceptance.
r .._
Appellants-accused were charged for having caused
E death of one person. According to prosecution the
accused assaulted the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 were the
eye-witnesses to the incident. The eye-witnesses left the
deceased in injured condition. PW 3-an auto driver, took
--
._
him to the hospital. The deceased made two dying
F declarations; one before Judicial Magistrate (PW 12) and
the other before a constabJe (PW-22). In the dying
declaration made to the Magistrate, he did not disclose ...
the names of the accused, while in the dying declaration
made to the constable, he specifically mentioned the
names of the accused. FIR was lodged on the basis of
G the dying declaration made to the constable. Case was_
' }-

registered uls. 307 IPC. On the death of deceased, the
case was altered to one uls. 302 IPC. Trial Court held the
accused guilty of offence uls. 302 IPC. High Court f-
acquitted them. Hence the present appeal.
H 1046
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY OF GOVT. v. 1047
SUBAIR@MOHAMED SUBAIR

Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1. The analysis made by the High Court to
direct acquittal cannot be faulted. The conduct of PWs 1
~
...,
and 2 is un-natural and unbelievable and their presence
at the time of occurrence is doubtful and the testimonies
of PWs 1 and 2 cannot be accepted. PWs 1 and 2 stated B
that they had left the injured in lurch and had disappeared
from the scene making deceased to cringe an auto driver
to take him to hospital. Further, both PWs 1 and 2 have,
---1 stated that they did not inform about the occurrence to
-.; anybody till they were asked by the police in the mid.:
""'(
night of the date of occurrence. [Paras 4 and 7] [1056-H; c
~ 1057-A-B; 1058-D]
2.1. The deceased did not state in his dying
declaration before the Judicial Magistrate that accused
Nos. 1 to 4 were his assailants in the occurrence. Ex.P-
12 is the dying declaration of deceased recorded by, D
Judicial Magistrate (PW-11 ). According to dying,
declaration of deceased, the Magistrate went and saw
'·\ deceased in the Trauma Ward of the Hospital and she put·
,,(~ some questions to him and was satisfied that the injured 1

was in a fit condition and she recorded Ex.P-12 statement
E
given by deceased in the presence of PW-12 and she'
obtained the left hand thumb impression of him in it. PW-
..
----;

f
12 has also given a certificate in Ex.P-12 that the patient '
was fully conscious and was able to speak throughout
the recording of the statement. From the above, it is clear
that the Judicial Magistrate after observing formalities had · F
recorded the dying declaration of deceased in the ,
r"
presence of duty doctor. In that Ex.P-12 dying
~. declaration, deceased had stated that the names of the
assailants were not known. According to the prosecution
case, deceased knew all the accused very well since he G
had an encounter with all of them a few days before the
occurrence as is evident from the testimony of PW-10.
[Para 5] [1057-C-F]
~ 2.2. The prosecution relied on Ex.P-21 statement
given by deceased to PW-22 Head Constable in the
H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Coimbatore Medi.cal College Hospital as his dying
declaration. According to PW-22, he recorded Ex.P-21
statement given by the deceased and the doctor (PW-25)
had given a certificate in it. PW-25 was not the doctor on ~
". \

duty in the ward at the time of recording Ex.P-21
statement and he himself in the cross-examination has
B
stated that usually the doctor incharge of the ward alone
would certify in the dying declaration. Ex.P-21 statement
of deceased runs to two full pages and the names of the
accused and the overt acts on their part were mentioned
""
in detail and the signature of deceased is also found in \·- .
c it. Ex.P-21 was recorded at 9.30 p.m. by the Head
constable and Ex.P-12 was recorded at 10.15 p.m. by the ~
Judicial Magistrate. There is vast difference in both the .:..-;.-
statements with regard to the contents and it is pertinent
to note that Ex.P-22 first information report based on
Ex.P-21 complaint was received in the court at 6.40 a.m.
D
on 27.8.1989 and Ex.P-21 statement as such had reached
the court only on 28.8.1989. The actual. complaint was not
sent along with the first information report and it leads ~-
to a serious suspicion_. In the circumstances, the dying r ,.,_
declaration recorded by Judicial Magistrate (PW-11)
E deserves acceptance and in it deceased did not implicate
accused Nos. 1 to 4 as his assailants. [Para 6] [1058-B-D]
~
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
NO. 162 of 2002. ...,....
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.4.2001 of the High
F Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 542 of
1992.
Y. Kanangaraj, S. Thananjayan for the Appellant.
> ..,.
Shakil Ahmed for the Resp.ondents ..
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court
directing acquittal of the respondents. Originally five persons
faced trial. The trial Court held the respondents guilty of offence I-
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
H (in short the 'IPC'). It however1 he19 that the charge levelled
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY OF GOVT. v. 1049
SUBAIR@MOHAMED SUBAIR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ]

against all the five accused persons under Section 120-8, IPC A
was not established. It also held that the charge against 5th
;. accused under Section 302 read with Section 1208, IPC was
?
not established. The four accused persons preferred appeal
before the High court which by the impugned judgment directed,

-
their acquittal. B
I 2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
Veeraganesh (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') and'
~
I his friend Ganesh (PW-1) @ Ganeshamoorthy and M. Ganesh
-+ (PW-2) were having involvement in Hindu Munnani said to be
a branch of R.S.S. The three were friends. On 26.8.1989,. c
Ganeshamoorthy (PW-1 ), M. Ganesh (PW-2) met Veeraganesh
at Rangakonar Street in Kattoor and spoke to him for about
ten minutes. Babu (PW-4) the brother of Veeraganesh was also•
---{ present at the spot when PW-1 and PW-2 spoke to
Veeraganesh at the said place. After a brief discussion among
themselves for a while, Veeraganesh went to Ganapathy along , D

..
~ ""
with PW-1 and PW-2 to meet his friend. As his friend was not
available at Ganapathy, they returned back to RSS office in
Ram Nagar and the three discussed among themselves for .
--t about ten minutes. Then all the three came to the over-bridge
via Kattoor. At about 7:30 in the night, the three were going from E
the round about of the over-bridge towards the Post office road.
' On hearing somebody asking them to stop, they looked back. ·
At that time, A-I to A-4 who were armed with weapons came
towards Veeraganesh and PW-I and PW-2. A-1, A-2 and A-3 1

were armed with knives and A-4 armed with Aruval (sickle). On
F
approaching towards Veeraganesh, they asked him to stop,
and stated that he was caught now and can not escape and
~
was lost once for all. Saying so, A-I stabbed Veeraganesh on
his abdomen and chest. A-2 who was armed with a knife
stabbed Veeraganesh on the left side of his head, left shoulder,
left thigh and on his leg. A-3 armed with knife assaulted :G
Veeraganesh on the back of his chest and on the side of his
chest. A-4 armed with aruval assaulted Veeraganesh on his
head and face. PW-I and PW-2 pleaded to leave him. The
injured Veeraganesh bled profusely and fell into a pool of blood.
A sodium vapour light was glowing at the place of occurrence H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A at the said over-bridge. PW-19, the line man of Electricity
Board, Coimbatore Corporation stated that on the day of
occurrence he switched on the lights in the over bridge area at
6 PM in the evening and switched them off at 6 AM on the next
morning. PW-1 and PW-2 who pleaded to the accused to leave
8 Veeraganesh fled when they were threatened by the accused
rushing towards them with weapons saying that they would also '-
~~

be done·away with. When they returned to.the place after some •
time, tney noticed large quantity of blood. They learnt from the
conversation of two or three persons at the spot that the injured
~-
ha~ been removed to Hospital. The weapon of offence used
C bt A-4 at the time of occurrence is M0-1. The knives used by
A-~ to A-3 as weapons of offence are MOs:2 to 4.
PW-3 Selvaraj drove the Auto TAR-6474 from Railway
function, Coimbatore to flower market via the over bridge. At
that time a person was lying with bleeding wounds at the round
D about of the over bridge. He asked PW-3 to take him to
Hospital. PW-3 accordingly took him to Hospital and admitted
him.
At about 8 .15 PM, the deceased was brought to r
Emergency Ward by Selvaraj (PW-3), the Auto driver. Dr.
E Radhakrishnan (PW-13) was on duty at that time in emergency
ward. At that time, the said Veeraganesh told PW-13 that on
that night, at about 7.30 p.m., at the over-bridge near the Head
Post office, Coimbatore, 4 known persons whose identity was
well known to hini, assaulted him with knives and aruvals. When
F PW-13 examined Veeraganesh, he noticed various injuries on
his body. PW-13 gave Tetanus injection to Veeraganesh who
had sustained the injuries and admitted him as inpatient in the
Trauma ward.-- PW-13 gave his opinion in which he had stated
that the injuries caused to Veeraganesh could have been
caused by the weapons which are M0-1 and M0-2 to 4 and
G has also issued a copy of the Accident Register in this regard
marked exhibit P-3. He sent the information furnished in exhibit
-P-14 to the out-post Police station located in the premises of
the Hospital.
While PW-20 Vivekanandan was on duty at the Out Post
H
STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY SECRETARY OF GOVT. v. 1051
SUBAIR@MOHAMED SUBAIR {DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Police Station of Coimbatore Medical College Hospital on A
26.08.1989, received the copy of the intimation regarding the
I adrJlission of Veeraganesh with stab injuries and at 7.45 PM,
he informed Coimbatore B-1 Bazaar Police station over
telephone. Subsequently, the information was entered in the OP
Police Station records, and the Head Constable subsequently B
came and received the intimation.
At about 8.15 PM while Raja Shanmugam (PW-22), the
Head Constable was on duty in Coimbatore B-1 Bazaar Police
-; Station, on the information given by PW-20, he visited the OP
Police Station of the Hospital and received the intimation. He
visited the Trauma ward and recorded the statement of the said
c
Veeraganesh and read over the same to him and on his
acceptance that it was recorded correct, he got his signature
in the statement. The said statement is exhibit P-21.
Veeraganesh was in a condition to give the statement at that
time. Dr. Jayaprakash (PW-25) who was present with PW-22 D
at that time gave a certificate to the effect that Veeraganesh
was conscious and well oriented at the time of giving the above
said statement. The said certificate (Exhibit P-30) is
incorporated in Exhibit P-21. PW-22 returned to Police Station
at 9.30 PM and registered the case in Cr.No.1027/1989 u/s E
307 IPC and sent the FIR along with the complaint to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate. He sent the copies of the FIR to the
concerned Superior officers. The FIR prepared by him is PW-
22.
Chandrasekar (PW-27) was the inspector of Police of B-
F
., 1 Bazaar PS. He came to the Police station at 21.30 hrs before
setting out on night rounds. He came to know of the registration
of this case by PW.,.22. As law and order problem existed at
that time within the area under his control, he had to be present
in that area in his station limits in view of the same. While
leaving the Police Station, he gave instructions to bring the FIR G
to the SOC and accordingly after attending the law and order
situation in his limits, he came to the spot of occurrence in the
night at 10.30 PM. The place of occurrence was on the over
bridge at Avinashi Road, Head Post office road junction. He
observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of PW-5 H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A Krishnan and Anand and prepared the observation mahazar
Exhibit P-1. The sketch of the scene is Exhibit P-31. PW-27
seized blood stained earth from the spot of occurrence, the "" ~-)o
control earth from the spot of occurrence (unstained tar portion
of the road), the torn four yard dhoti, currency notes, Hawai
chappal and other materials (MOs 5 to 15 mentioned therein)
B
under the cover of mahazar, in the presence of witnesses. After
making arrangements to bring a photographer to the spot of
occurrence, he visited the Hospital, examined and recorded the I>
statement of Veeraganesh, seized the blood stain~d shirt, brief
worn at the time by Veeraganesh, Exhibit P-16, Exhlo-it-P-17 -\-
c in the presence of PW-5 and in the presence of Anand under
the cover of mahazar. As instructed by PW-27, Johan (PW-26),
the photographer, visited the spot of occurrence on 26.08.1989
at 12 p.m and took photographs, which are MOs 19 to 26. The
negatives of the said photographs are MOs 27 to 34.
D Smt.S. Kalavathi who was the Judicial Magistrate on
26.08.1989 received the requisition for recording the dying
declaration (PW-11) at 10 PM, visited the Trauma ward in the
Hospital and after knowing the details regarding the concerned
person, she examined him. After confirming that he was
,
E conscious and well oriented, she recorded his statement. She
took the left thumb impression of the injured person on the dying
declaration. The said statement is Exhibit P-12. Doctor
Balasubramaniam (PW-12), gave a certificate to the effect that
the injured was conscious at th~ time of giving the dying ~

declaration. F-
F On 29.08.89, as per the information received by him, PW- I-
27 arrested the accused A-1 Zubair, A-2 Mohammed Khan, A-
I''"
3-=-Rafi at 12.00 a.m. at Podanur-Pollachi Road Junction at
Aathupalam. When he enquired them separately, they gave
separate statements, which were recorded. On the basis of
G these statements recoveries were made.
On 29.08.1989 at 7.30 P.M. while Dr. Govindaraj (PW-18)
was on duty in emergency ward, the accused Mohammed
.
~
I-

H
Zubair along with the medical memo given by the inspector of
Police, B-1 Bazaar Police station, came for treatment. He was
)-

-
~
I-
STATEOFTAMILNADUREP. BYSECRETARYOFGOVT. v. 1053
SUBAIR@MOHAMED SUBAIR [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ]

having following injuries on his person: A

• I
1. A skin deep cut injury on his left index finger, it was
of 2 cuts length on the outer aspect of the finger. It
was in a half healed state.
2. A small cut injury on his left thumb.
B
3. A contusion beneath his left ear.
He was treated as out patient. In this regard a copy of the
exhibit P-19 was issued. On the same day PW-18 examined
A-3 Rafi and found the following injuries on his person:-
"'f
1. A small cut injury on his right index finger. c
2. A cut injury of about 1cm length sking deep on his
left thumb.
He was also treated as out patient and a copy of the AR
register, Exhibit P-20 was issued.
Dr. Perumalrajan (PW-14) gave treatment to Veeraganesh D
on 27.08.89. He treated him to stabilise his general condition
- .......
and blood pressure to prepare him for the surgical operation.
He performed the surgery on him at 10:45 PM .
Dr. Baskaran (PW-16) examined Veeraganesh on the night
of 31.08.89 at 9.30 PM and fouhd his condition critical. Despite E
the intensive treatment given Veeraganesh died at 11.25 PM
on that night. In this regard he sent an intimation Exhibit P-15.
PW-27, the Inspector of Police who received the intimation
altered the section of law and submitted the express report,
altering the section into 302 IPC, Exhibit P-32, to the Judicial
F
Magistrate. Subsequently, he held inquest on the dead body of
·• \ Veeraganesh in the presence of witnesses at the Hospital and
prepared the inquest report, Exhibit P-33. He sent the
requisition for post mortem examination of the dead body,
Exhibit P-17 through PW-21, the Police constable John
Viswanathan. On receipt of the requisition PW-17 Dr. G
_.,.
Diwakaran, the Additional Professor of Coimbatore Medical
College Hospital, commenced the post mortem examination at
-\ 8 AM on 01.09.89. During post mortem examination he noticed
'~ abrasions with reddish brown scab, over the right fore arm, over
• '
the back of the left shoulder, over the outer aspect of the left H
'
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R.

~

A arm, over the front of right knee and above the right big toe.
Apart from them, he noticed incised sutured wounds of muscle
deep over the center of the forehead, over the root of the nose,
over the bridge of the nose, below the lower lips, over the right
side of the chin, over the right cheek, over the lower portion of
' -
the right ear, over the right s·ide ofthe angle of the jaw, over
B
the right side of the Ol:Jter aspect of the neck, behind the right
ear on the scalp, over the parieto-occipjtal area, over the mid-
occipital area, over\the root of the neck and left side of the front
chest, ()Ver the right side aspect of the chest, over the right side
outer aspect of the chest. These injuries were mentioned from ~-
c 6 to 22. He also gave the measurements of the wounds. Further,
he mentioned the surgical wounds from 23 to 44. He also gave
the lo~tions of the wounds and their mea~urements. He gave
post mortem certificate with his opinion, Exhibit P-28 stating
t~at th.e deceased would have died of septic complication of
D stab injuries over the abdomen. He further stated that the injuries
41 to 44 were sufficient to cause the death of an ordinary man.
These injuries 41 to 44 were found on the small intestines.
PW-27 submitted a requisition, Exhibit P-23 sending the
properties seized in this case for chemical analysis. Rajamani r
(PW-23), the Head Clerk deposed about the details regarding
E
the details of the forwarding note sent to the Forensic_ science
Laboratory, Exhibit P-24 and regarding the reports receh(ed
from the said lab, Exhibit P-25 and Exhibit P-26. '
~"flt-

Some of the witnesses spoke regarding the motive for the
murder of Veeraganesh aod the criminal conspiracy. hatched
F
by the accused to murder him. Durai (PW-7) stated to have
witnessed all the accused on the night of 13. 7.1989 at
f~
Oppanakara Street and also witnessed A-5 having a notice in
his hand and accused Hyder Ali having a tin box with glue in
his hand. PW-7 also witnessed them pasting the notice on a
G petty s_hop located opposite to a bank. The notice contained
the wordings, "Islamic Fatwa. We would murder the RSS ).

Mooka.mbigai Mani, Sampath, Paramasivam who incite

H
religious ill-feelings, within a. week" which also contained the
word "jihad'' in it. PW-7 also spoke about having witnessed the
four accused coming out of a mosque discussing among
J......

.
,>
!

r
\
STATEOFTAMILNADUREP. BYSECRETARYOFGOVT. v. 1055
...... SUBAIR@MOHAMED SUBAIR [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

themselves and later, going to the shop of one Bilal Hajiyar and A

-- ,-J
continuing the discussion in his shop about four days prior to
the occurrence. In the deposition given by Devan (PW-8), has
spoken about having witnessed the accused two or three times,
at Bilal Hardwares shop and discussing among themselves and
also about having witnessed the accused A-5 threatening
B
Veeraganesh at Race course, in front of cosmopolitan club,
saying that "my anger would subside only if you are murdered",
Prior to a week before the occurrence. PW-8 further spoke
about having witnessed the four, five accused secretly
discussing among themselves in front of big mosque and their
subsequent going in to the Bilal Hardware shop. c
In the evidence given by Sankar (PW-10), has stated that
in about the first week of August 1989, on a particular day, when
he was going with Veeraganesh near the over-bridge, the said
five accused stared at him and A-5 told Veeraganesh, "we are
waiting for you only, wait" and further stated that, when PW-10 D
hurriedly took Veeraganesh in an Auto and fled the scene, A-5
told Veeraganesh, "you escaped today, how many days will you
have some one with you".

" Sekar (PW-24), the Inspector of Police has given evidence
with regard to the cases registered against Veeraganesh and E
the accused. PW-24 has deposed about the Coimbatore B-1
Bazaar PS Cr. No.440/1998 u/s 141, 302, 149 IPC registered
against Veeraganesh and 22 others, B-1 Bazaar PS Cr.No.420/
1998 u/s 141, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 IPC registered against
Ramnarayan, Veeraganesh, Mookambikai Mani, Paramasivam
F
and Sampath; B-1 Bazaar PS Cr.No.32.55/1998 r~gistered
against Basha and 10 others belonging to Muslim community .
.\ The accused were muslim fundamentalists and the deceased
Veer~ganesh and others belonged to the organisation Hindu
Munnani and that a number of cases were registered against
them. S,araswathy (PW-9) is the mother of Veeraganesh. She G
had spoken that her son was the District organiser in Hindu
Munnani and that he used to speak in the Public Platforms and
that the muslims had an animosity against him as a result of
• -\
his speeches made in the public meetings.
_..
~ Murugasamy (PW-5), the Inspector of Police, CB-CID, took H

~ ,r-1..
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
~

A examination in this case on 2.9.1989. After examination of
witnesses as per the information received by him, he arrested r-
the accused Hyder Ali at Ambrampalayam on 7.9.1989 at 6 AM
and subsequently sent him to Judicial custody. ""
Mukkambu (PW"-29), the Inspector of Police, CB-CID.,
B arrested A-5 at Bilal Hardware in N.H, Road, Coimbatore on
23.09.1989. As per the statements of witnesses Devan, Durai
and Sankar, he arrested A-5 and remanded him. He completed
the investigation in this case and on 20.8.1990 he submitted
the charge sheet against the accused u/s 120(B), 302 and
120(B) read with Section 302 IPC against the accused.
c After taking the evidences of the prosecution witnesses,
as per the Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short the 'Code') the accused were questioned with regard
to the evidence led against them by the prosecution. A-1 stated
that it was a false case foisted against him and that was not I
;
D concerned in that case. A"-2 submitted that the case Was a
false case and that he was the first younger brother of Basha.
A-3 stated that the case registered against him was a false
case and his father's name was Hanifa and that Shajahan was r
not his father's name. A-4 stated that he was not at all
E concerned Jn the case. A-5 stated that it was a false case
intentionally foisted against them. No defence ~itness was
examined on behalf of the accused.
On the basis of complaint filed, first information report was
lodged and investigation· was undertaken. On completion of
F investigation, charge she~t was filed. Since the accused
persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. Twenty nine
witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. The ,.
trial Court found the accused guilty. In appeal, the High Court
found the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 as well as the so called
dying declaration to be not credible and cogent and directed
G acquittal.
3. It was submitted that the reasons given by the High
Court to direct acquittal are without any basis. There is no )-
appearance for the respondents. ,,
;
4. It is seen that PWs 1 and 2 stated that they had left the ~
H
STATEOFTAMILNADUREP. BYSECRETARYOFGOVT. v. 1057
... SUBAIR@MOHAMED SUBAIR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ]

injured in lurch and had disappeared from the scene making A
deceased to cringe an auto driver to take him to hospital. Would
" any close friend of a person involved in the movement allow
such a thing to happen to him is the question looming large and
""
there is no explanation for it. Further, it is curious to note that
both PWs 1 and 2 have stated that they did not inform about 8
the occurrence to anybody till they were asked by the police in
the mid night of the date of occurrence. The conduct of PWs 1

..,
and 2 is un-natural and unbelievable and their presence at the
time of occurrence is doubtful and the testimonies of PWs 1
and 2 cannot be accepted .
5. Veera Ganesan did not state in his dying declaration
c
before the Judicial Magistrate that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were
his assailants in the occurrence. Ex.P-12 is the dying
declaration of deceased recorded by, Judicial Magistrate
Kalavathi (PW-11) at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital.
According to dying declaration of deceased from the hospital D
at 10.00 p.m. on 26.8.1989 she went and saw deceased in the
Trauma Ward and she put some questions to him and was
satisfied that the injured was in a fit condition and she recorded
Ex.P-12 statement given by deceased in the presence of PW-
" 12 and she obtained the left hand thumb impression of him in E
it. PW-12 has also given a certificate in Ex.P-12 that the patient
was fully conscious and was able to speak throughout the .
recording of the statement. From the above, it is clear that the
Judicial Magistrate after observing formalities had recorded the
dying declaration of deceased in the presence of duty doctor.
In that Ex.P-12 dying declaration. Deceased had stated as F
follows:
~~
"Today night four persons chased and stabbed me
near the fly-over. Their names are not known. One month
before, they exhibited posters that we would all be killed.
It is not known who are they." G
(Underlined for emphasis)
6. Deceased in the above statement has stated that four
---\ persons attackd him and he did not know· their names.
According to the prosecution case, deceased knew all the
......' H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
~

A accused very well since he had an encounter with all of them a
few days before the occurrence as is evident from the testimony /
of PW-10. In such circumstance, if really accused Nos. 1 to 4 '<;
had attacked deceased, definitely he would have told the
names or identification of the .assailants. The prosecution relied
on Ex.P-21 statement given by deceased to PW-22 Head
B
Constable in the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital as his
dying declaration. According to PW-22 Head Constable, he
received intimation about the admission of deceased in
Government Hospital at 8.15 p.m. and he went to Trauma Ward
in the hospital and enquiry deceased at 9.30 p.m. and recorded
c Ex.P~21 statement given by him and Dr. Jayaprakash (PW-25)
had given a certificate in it. PW-25 was not the doctor on duty '
/

in Trauma ward at the time of recording Ex.P-21 statement and
he himself in the cross examination has stated that usually the
doctor incharge of the ward alone would certify in the dying
D declaration. Ex.P-21 statement of deceased runs to two full
pages and the names of the accused and the overt acts on their
part were mentioned in detail and the signature of deceased
is also found in it. Ex.P-21 was recorded at 9.30 p.m. by the
Head constable and Ex.P-12 was recorded_ at 10.15 p.m. by 'r
the Judicial Magistrate. There is vast difference in both the
statements with regard Jo the contents and it is pertinent to note
that Ex.P.:.22 first information report based on Ex.P-21
complaint was received in the court at 6.40 a.m. on 27.8.1989
and Ex.P-21 statement as such had reached the court only on
28.8.1989. The actual complaint was not sent along with the
first information report and it leads to a serious suspicion as
noted by the High Court. In the circumstances, the dying
declaration recorded by Judicial Magistrate (PW-11) deserves t--
acceptance and in it deceased did not implicate accused Nos.
1 to 4 as his assailants.
7. The High Court highlighted the above said aspects to
direct acquittal. We .find that the analysis made by the High
Court to direct acquittal cannot be faulted. The appeal is without
merit and dismissed accordingly.
)-
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
':'--