The Bombay High Court has affirmed that a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained even when the weapon is recovered after a significant delay and not subjected to forensic analysis, provided the dying declaration, eyewitness account, and medical evidence form a coherent and unbroken chain of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ejaj Urf Pintya Sagir Ahmed Ansari, was charged with the murder of Mohammed Faiji Kamrul Khan Sayyad @ Amirul Hassan Kamrul Hassan on 7th February, 2019, in Bhiwandi, Maharashtra. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with an absconding companion Salman, demanded Rs. 200 from the deceased during two separate confrontations on the same day. After the deceased refused, the appellant attacked him with a knife, inflicting two deep stab wounds - one to the waist and another near the anus - leading to fatal internal injuries.
Key Facts
- The deceased was admitted to IGM Hospital, Bhiwandi, on 7th February, 2019, at approximately 4:10 p.m.
- He was later shifted to Civil Hospital, Thane, and then to J.J. Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on 9th February, 2019.
- The deceased gave a written dying declaration to Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) Tukaram Sakunde (PW11) at Civil Hospital, Thane, on 7th February, 2019, at approximately 9:40 p.m., in the presence of Dr. Anjali Pimple (PW13), who endorsed his mental fitness.
- The dying declaration (Exhibit-52) stated that the appellant demanded money, assaulted him with a knife, and threatened bystanders.
- The appellant was arrested on 1st August, 2019, after absconding since the incident.
- A knife was recovered on 6th August, 2019, from under a black tile near a public toilet in Gayatri Nagar, Bhiwandi, at the appellant’s instance, in the presence of panch witnesses (Exhibit-49 and Exhibit-50).
- The knife was not sent for chemical analysis.
- The post-mortem report (Exhibit-32), conducted by Dr. Shailendra Anande (PW5), recorded two fatal stab wounds: one 5 cm x 1 cm above the left gluteal region and another 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm above the anterior superior iliac spine, both penetrating the bowel and rectum.
- The cause of death was opined as multiple stab injuries, with no evidence of poisoning.
- Three eyewitnesses testified: PW1 (Abbas, the deceased’s brother), PW2 (Hassan Abbas, a guest), and PW4 (Zarina Begum, the deceased’s mother).
- PW9 (Halimabi, hotel owner) turned hostile, but her prior police statement was used to corroborate the prosecution’s version.
- The appellant had an externment order against him, but no evidence linked the crime to any third party.
Procedural History
- 07.02.2019: Incident occurred; deceased admitted to hospital.
- 07.02.2019, 9:40 p.m.: Dying declaration recorded at Civil Hospital, Thane.
- 08.02.2019: Police seized deceased’s blood-stained clothes.
- 09.02.2019: Deceased died at J.J. Hospital.
- 10.02.2019: Offence upgraded from Section 307 to Section 302 IPC.
- 01.08.2019: Appellant arrested; knife recovered on 06.08.2019.
- 21.02.2019: Chargesheet filed by Investigating Officer PW12.
- 06.03.2023: Sessions Judge, Thane, convicted appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with Rs. 10,000 fine.
- 30.03.2026: Bombay High Court delivered judgment on Criminal Appeal No. 1377 of 2023.
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellant
- Challenged the reliability of the dying declaration due to alleged inconsistency between PW11 and PW13 regarding the timing of the doctor’s endorsement.
- Argued that the deceased’s critical condition rendered him unfit to give a statement.
- Contended that the eyewitnesses (PW1, PW2, PW4) were inconsistent with their prior statements under Section 164 CrPC and lacked corroboration.
- Asserted that the recovery of the knife was unreliable due to its public location and six-month delay.
- Sought reduction of charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception (iv) to Section 300 IPC, citing sudden quarrel.
For the Respondent-State
- Maintained that the dying declaration was properly recorded with medical endorsement and bore the deceased’s signature.
- Emphasized that PW1’s testimony was consistent with the medical evidence and dying declaration.
- Highlighted that PW4’s oral dying declaration corroborated the written version.
- Argued that minor inconsistencies in PW2’s testimony did not undermine the core evidence.
- Stated that the weapon’s recovery, though delayed, was voluntary and supported by panch witnesses.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, reduction of the charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, and acquittal on grounds of reasonable doubt.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained solely on the basis of a dying declaration, corroborated by an eyewitness and an oral dying declaration, despite the delayed and untested recovery of the weapon and minor inconsistencies in witness statements.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the dying declaration was inadmissible because PW11 and PW13 gave conflicting accounts on whether the doctor’s endorsement preceded or followed the recording of the statement. He argued that mere consciousness does not equate to mental fitness for giving a reliable statement, especially given the severity of the injuries and blood loss. He further challenged the credibility of PW1, PW2, and PW4, pointing to contradictions in their Section 164 CrPC statements and the absence of independent witnesses despite the crowded location. He submitted that the knife’s recovery from a public toilet after six months, without forensic testing, rendered it useless as corroborative evidence. He invoked Exception (iv) to Section 300 IPC, asserting the act occurred in a sudden quarrel without premeditation.
For the Respondent-State
The State’s counsel argued that the dying declaration was properly recorded under medical supervision, with the doctor affirming the deceased’s mental state. He emphasized that PW1’s testimony was detailed, consistent with the post-mortem findings, and unchallenged on material points. He contended that PW4’s oral dying declaration, made to her mother moments after the assault, was a legally valid corroborative statement under established jurisprudence. He dismissed the weapon’s recovery as a secondary circumstance, noting the prosecution had already established guilt through direct evidence. He rejected the sudden quarrel plea, highlighting the two-stage confrontation and deliberate targeting of vital organs.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, beginning with the dying declaration. It noted that while PW11 stated the doctor’s endorsement preceded the recording, PW13 testified she endorsed it after. The Court held that this minor discrepancy did not vitiate the statement, as both witnesses agreed the deceased was conscious, the doctor was present throughout, and the statement was signed by the deceased. The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Mirza Mohammad and K. S. K. S. S. v. State of Tamil Nadu, affirming that technical irregularities do not invalidate a dying declaration if its substance is trustworthy and consistent with other evidence.
"The deceased had survived for two days, underwent no surgery until after the statement, and signed the declaration himself. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity."
The Court accepted PW1’s testimony as reliable, noting his close relationship with the deceased and the consistency of his account with the post-mortem injuries. It rejected PW2’s testimony as unreliable, as his Section 164 statement indicated he arrived after the assault and learned of it from the deceased - making him a hearsay witness, not an eyewitness. However, it upheld PW4’s oral dying declaration as admissible under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, as it was made under the expectation of death and corroborated the written version.
The Court dismissed the challenge to the knife’s recovery, acknowledging its public location and delay but holding that it was not the sole basis of conviction. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case rested on the convergence of the dying declaration, eyewitness testimony, and medical evidence.
Regarding the applicability of Section 302 IPC, the Court rejected the appellant’s claim of sudden quarrel. It observed that the incident occurred in two distinct phases: first, a demand for money; second, a deliberate return with a weapon and two forceful stab wounds aimed at the abdomen and rectum. The Court concluded that the act exhibited premeditation, intent to cause death, and knowledge of likely fatal consequences, satisfying all ingredients of murder under Section 300 IPC.
"The appellant did not act in the heat of a sudden quarrel. He returned with a weapon, struck twice, and targeted vital organs. This was not impulsive - it was execution of intent."
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs. 10,000, were upheld. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall suffer six months’ simple imprisonment. The set-off of custody from 1st August, 2019, under Section 428 CrPC, was confirmed. All interim applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Dying Declarations Remain Powerful Even With Minor Procedural Irregularities
- Practitioners must argue that technical inconsistencies in the recording process (timing of endorsement, sequence of signatures) do not automatically invalidate a dying declaration if the substance is credible and corroborated.
- The presence of a medical officer’s endorsement, even if not perfectly timed, strengthens admissibility under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act.
- A signed dying declaration by the deceased, made in the presence of a doctor, carries high probative value.
Oral Dying Declarations Are Legally Valid and Corroborative
- Statements made by a dying person to close relatives (e.g., mother, spouse) in the immediate aftermath of injury are admissible as oral dying declarations.
- Such statements need not be recorded by police to be valid; their reliability is assessed based on proximity to death, absence of motive to fabricate, and consistency with other evidence.
- Defense attempts to dismiss them as hearsay will fail if they align with written declarations and medical findings.
Delayed or Unforensed Weapon Recovery Does Not Invalidate Murder Convictions
- Recovery of a weapon after months, even from a public place, can be accepted if it is voluntary, witnessed, and consistent with the prosecution’s narrative.
- Forensic testing of the weapon is not mandatory if the conviction is based on direct evidence - eyewitnesses, dying declarations, and post-mortem reports.
- Courts will not require perfection in evidence collection if the overall chain of proof is unbroken and beyond reasonable doubt.
