1988 (8) TMI 421 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of dying declarations.
2. Credibility of eye-witnesses.
3. High Court's assessment of evidence.
4. Grounds for interference by the Supreme Court.

Summary:

1. Validity of dying declarations:
The prosecution's case relied heavily on the dying declarations (Ex. Ka. 1 and Ex. Ka. 7) made by the deceased, Harish. The defense argued that due to the serious nature of Harish's injuries, including a slashed tongue and profuse bleeding, he would have lost consciousness and been unable to articulate speech. The High Court accepted this argument, doubting the credibility of the dying declarations. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court ignored the positive and firm opinion of Dr. Rajeev Aggarwal (PW 3), who examined Harish and stated that "the deceased could survive and speak for an hour after being injured." The Supreme Court found that the High Court's preference for hypothetical medical opinions over categorical ones was erroneous.

2. Credibility of eye-witnesses:
The prosecution presented two eye-witnesses, Omkar (PW 1) and Khiali Ram (PW 2), whose testimonies were initially accepted by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, however, found discrepancies in their accounts and deemed them unreliable. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court failed to properly assess the eye-witnesses' credibility and did not consider their consistency with other evidence, such as the immediate lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) and the presence of Harish at the police station shortly after the attack.

3. High Court's assessment of evidence:
The High Court's judgment was criticized for not considering important pieces of evidence, such as Ex. Ka. 2, which related to the deposit of the knife at the Station-house by Harish, and the testimony of the investigating officer (PW 7). The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court misread evidence, particularly regarding Harish's ability to speak after the injuries, and failed to appreciate the established facts and logical inferences that supported the prosecution's case.

4. Grounds for interference by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court reiterated that it does not usually interfere with findings of fact by the High Court unless there are serious errors or gross miscarriages of justice. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment was vitiated by serious errors, including misreading evidence and ignoring material facts. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a careful and independent assessment of eye-witness accounts and the need to avoid undue reliance on hypothetical medical opinions.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case for fresh disposal according to law. The High Court was directed to re-admit the appeal, hear it on merits afresh, and consider calling for expert medical evidence on the effect of the injuries on Harish's speech and consciousness. The respondents were to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal was partly allowed.