Rajasthan Vs. Ashfaq Ahmed  INSC 472 (3 March 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 591
OF 2003 STATE OF RAJASTHAN ... Appellant(s) Versus ASHFAQ AHMED ...
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.
Court by the impugned order directed acquittal.
Court noticed that the Parcha bayan (Ext. P1) purported to have been recored by
the Investigating -2- 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 -3- directing acquittal. We find no
infirmity in the judgment of the High Court to warrant interference. The appeal
fails and dismissed.
...................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
....................J. ((ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
March 04, 2009.