Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 572 (MP)

Ramkaran v. State of M. P.

2024-08-17

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, VIVEK RUSIA

body2024
JUDGMEN T: Rajendra Kumar Vani, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 01.10.2013 passed by the Court of Special Judge {Constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989}, Vidisha (M.P.) in Special Case No.37/2010, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for brevity “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default stipulation. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.11.2009 at 10.00 P.M. Complainant/deceased Maharaj Singh Ahirwar lodged a report at Police Station Karariya, District Vidisha to the effect that he studies in class fifth. Today, his parents had gone to Samshabad. He, his elder brother Brajesh, Bhupendra and sister Savita were at home. At about 7.00 pm, he had gone near school to see his parents where accused Raju Khangar, Prakash Khangar, Ramkaran Maina and Pradeep Maina came and Ramkaran caught hold of him, Prakash tied his mouth, Raju poured kerosene oil on his head and set him on fire by igniting a matchstick and ran away. He ran screaming towards Babbu's house where Babbu extinguished fire. Then, he narrated whole story to Babbu, Bhupendra, Brajesh and Komalbai. His chest, private part, both hands, legs and back were burnt. The accused with intention to kill set him on fire. About four months prior to this incident, Marpeet was caused with his father and a case of that incident is going on in the Court. The accused burnt him due to enmity. On such report, FIR Crime No.211/2009 was registered at Police Station Karariya under Section 307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. The injured Maharaj Singh was sent to District Hospital, Vidisha for medical examination, where his medical examination was conducted vide Ex.P/6. The dying declaration of the injured was recorded and other necessary formalities were done. The victim was referred to Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, for examination and treatment, where he died on 8.12.2009 during treatment. Postmortem over the body of the deceased was conducted. During investigation, accused persons were arrested, however, accused Raju remained absconding. Upon completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed. Case was committed. The charges were framed which appellants denied and claimed for trial. 3. Postmortem over the body of the deceased was conducted. During investigation, accused persons were arrested, however, accused Raju remained absconding. Upon completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed. Case was committed. The charges were framed which appellants denied and claimed for trial. 3. In order to prove the charges, prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and placed 23 documents on record. The accused persons in their defence examined three witnesses, namely Dr. Vijay Singh Thakur (DW-1), Bhagat Singh Raghuvanshi (DW-2) and Dr. Shekhar Jalavankar (DW-3). 4. The learned Special Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellants, as mentioned above by the impugned judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who immediately reached the spot while deceased was burnt. The entire case of the prosecution rests on dying declarations in the form of FIR (Ex.P/1) recorded by SHO N.K.Kohli (PW-1), dying declaration (Ex.P/7) recorded by Naib Tahsildar Anil Kumar Kushwah (PW-15) and police statement of the deceased (Ex.P/20) which was recorded by Ajeet Patil (PW-10). In this regard, it is submitted by learned counsel that the deceased was not fully conscious after receiving burn injuries and he was not in a position to speak and to lodge the FIR as well as to give any statement before Naib Tahsildar or investigating officer. It is also submitted by learned counsel that both the hands of the deceased were also in burnt condition, therefore, it was not possible for the deceased to sign on FIR (Ex.P/1) and dying declaration (Ex.P/7). Moreso, the copy of FIR/dying declaration (Ex.P/1) stated to be sent to the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. has been placed on record as Ex.D/1. Both the documents (Ex.P/1 & Ex.D/1) are written in different writing and not at the same time and Ex.D/1 is not a carbon copy of Ex.P/1 which casts a serious doubt as regards veracity of this document (Ex.P/1). The signatures on these documents are not of the deceased as stated by the best witness in this regard Bharat Singh(PW-16), who is father of the deceased. On Ex.P./1 & Ex.P/20 it is not mentioned that deceased was in fit condition to give statement or speak truth. Therefore, all three dying declarations are not worth credence. The signatures on these documents are not of the deceased as stated by the best witness in this regard Bharat Singh(PW-16), who is father of the deceased. On Ex.P./1 & Ex.P/20 it is not mentioned that deceased was in fit condition to give statement or speak truth. Therefore, all three dying declarations are not worth credence. Therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by acquitting the appellants. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State by supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence in proper perspective has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On 2 8. 11.2009 Dr. Sudhir Jain (PW-7) examined injured Maharaj Singh and found superficial to deep burn present over whole back. His arms, abdomen, perineum, both lower limb, hair (backside) were also burnt. Smell of kerosene was coming out. As per the opinion of the doctor, there was superficial deep burn about 65-70% which was dangerous to life. After death of the deceased, on 8.12.2009 postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Geetarani Gupta (PW-11) and as per the opinion of the said doctor, death was due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn & its complications. Thus, the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 9. There is no eye-witness of the incident. The witnesses have seen the deceased in burnt condition just after the incident and as per their statements deceased himself revealed the names of accused persons by whom kerosene was poured on him and set him on fire. But in this regard, learned trial Court has assessed the veracity of the statements of these witnesses. In this regard, Bablu (PW-2), who reached the spot first, stated in his statement that deceased has revealed the names of four accused persons, but in cross-examination para 8 he stated that only accused Raju (absconding) has set the deceased on fire. Brijesh (PW-3) has stated that deceased intimated him names of all four accused while Bhupendra (PW-4) and Ramsingh (PW-9) did not state name of any accused. Ramsingh (PW-9), who is the independent witness, did not even state that he has seen any accused running from the spot. Brijesh (PW-3) has stated that deceased intimated him names of all four accused while Bhupendra (PW-4) and Ramsingh (PW-9) did not state name of any accused. Ramsingh (PW-9), who is the independent witness, did not even state that he has seen any accused running from the spot. Savita (PW-5) stated names of only Raju and Prakash while Komalbai (PW-12) and Omvatibai (PW-14) deposed as regards all four accused persons. Bharatsingh (PW-16), who is father of the deceased, stated only name of accused Raju (absconding) who has caused the incident. Therefore, all these witnesses, who stated that deceased has revealed the names of accused persons by whom kerosene was poured and set him on fire, were deposing differently as regards names of accused and there is serious contradiction in their statements and that does not inspire confidence of the Court and casts a serious doubt on the veracity of their statements as regards participation of these accused in the incident. Learned trial Court in para 35 by discussing the evidence of these witnesses has disbelieved their testimony on the ground of material contradiction and variation in their statements. 10. Therefore, the case of the prosecution rests on the dying declarations in the form of FIR (Ex.P/1) recorded by SHO N.K.Kohli (PW-1), dying declaration (Ex.P/7) recorded by Naib Tahsildar Anil Kumar Kushwah (PW-15) and police statement (Ex.P/20) which was recorded by Ajeet Patil (PW-10). 11. When we travel through the testimony of prosecution witnesses as regards condition of the deceased just after the incident, it is revealed from the statement of N.K.Kohli (PW-1) that both the hands of the deceased were burnt (para 6). He also admits that before lodging of the FIR he did not put any question as regards mental state and condition of the deceased. Bablu (PW-2) in para 7 stated that deceased was 80-90% burnt and he was feeling acute burning and he became unconscious while going to police station and he remained unconscious till his death. Brijesh (PW-3), who is brother of the deceased, has stated in para 3 that deceased was highly burnt and he was in bad condition. Bhupendra (PW-4) has stated in his chief examination that deceased was completely burnt. He also stated in para 5 that deceased was not in a condition to speak. 12. Further, Savita (PW-5) in para 11 stated that the deceased was highly burnt and in unconscious state. Bhupendra (PW-4) has stated in his chief examination that deceased was completely burnt. He also stated in para 5 that deceased was not in a condition to speak. 12. Further, Savita (PW-5) in para 11 stated that the deceased was highly burnt and in unconscious state. He was not even able to speak. Dr.Sudhir Jain (PW-7) in chief examination stated that deceased was 65-70% burnt. In para 1 of his statement he stated that deceased has burn injury on his right hand also. In para 7 he also admits that only chest and face remained to be burnt. Dr. Geetarani Gupta (PW-11), who has conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, has stated in para 4 that there was burn injury on the body of the deceased on wrist and palmar part of thumb, dorsal part of 4th and 5th metacarpal, on finger and left medial arm. In para 8, she admits that deceased was about 80% burnt. Palm of left hand and thumb of right hand were burnt. Komal Bai (PW-12) in para 5 of her statement stated that deceased Maharaj Singh was completely burnt. Pooransingh (PW-17) also in his chief examination has stated that except face, remaining body of the deceased was burnt. This fact is also ratified by Bhagat Singh Raghuwanshi (DW-2) who stated that deceased was crying and weeping and his body was completely burnt. 13. In this regard, the statement of Dr. Shekhar Jalvankar (DW-3) is also pertinent to be mentioned. He stated categorically that on 28.11.2009 at 10.30 pm the deceased was admitted in surgical ward by Dr. Sudhir Jain, Medical Officer, in which the deceased was stated to be 65% burnt and his general condition was poor. Blood pressure could not be measured. Superficial and deep burn were on back, both the legs, abdomen and perineum. Fortwin injections were given during treatment which beside relieving pain is having sedation effect and if the injured was in shock, then after injection his consciousness would further deteriorate and in that condition he is not able to speak correctly and will state absurd things and his mental state will remain bad. Though he has admitted in cross- examination that treating doctor can better explain the condition of patient, but this witness has seen the deceased in burnt condition and stated about his general condition, therefore, the statement of this witness cannot be discarded. 14. Though he has admitted in cross- examination that treating doctor can better explain the condition of patient, but this witness has seen the deceased in burnt condition and stated about his general condition, therefore, the statement of this witness cannot be discarded. 14. The evidence on record as regards the general condition of the deceased just after the incident, raises a serious doubt as to the conscious condition of the deceased at the time of lodging FIR (Ex.P-1) and at the time of recording dying declaration (Exh. P-7). 15. Bharat Singh (PW-16) who is the father of the deceased, has categorically stated that Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-7 do not bear signatures of his son. That also renders these documents doubtful. Moreover, Ex. P-1 and so called carbon copy of this FIR (Ex. D-1) are admittedly in different writing and both the documents have not been prepared by the same person. Ex.D-1 is not the carbon copy of Ex. P-1. In this regard, no satisfactory explanation has been offered by N.K.Kohli (PW-1). Moreover, this copy of FIR has not been forwarded forthwith to the concerned Magistrate. This witness stated that the copy of this FIR has been sent to the concerned Magistrate after two days because being Sunday there was holiday, but this is not a proper explanation in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Tej a Singh and others, (2001) 3 SCC 147 . The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under :- “4........As a matter of fact, the explanation put forth by the learned counsel in regard to the delay in the FIR reaching the court is not tenable because assuming that there were some court holidays that cannot be a ground for the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate, because requirement of law is that the FIR should reach the Magistrate concerned without any undue delay. We are of the opinion that the explanation given by the prosecution regarding the delay in the FIR reaching the Magistrate is neither convincing nor acceptable." 16. N.K. Kohli (PW-1) has simpliciter exhibited Ex.P-1 while treating it as a dying declaration. It was incumbent upon this witness to depose as regards contents of this document. In this regard, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. N.K. Kohli (PW-1) has simpliciter exhibited Ex.P-1 while treating it as a dying declaration. It was incumbent upon this witness to depose as regards contents of this document. In this regard, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. State of M.P. , 2010 SCC OnLine MP 618 is referable. Relevant para of the said judgment reads as under : “ 14. So far as the dying declaration (Exh. P-7) recorded by Dr. H.K. Pastore is concerned, according to us, this document is also not a proved document for the simple reason that when the doctor appeared as P.W. 5, nowhere it was stated by him that what was told by the deceased to him and, therefore, according to us, merely putting exhibit mark on the document of dying declaration would not mean that the same has been proved. We may further add that mere production and marking of dying declarations as exhibits by the Court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. We have no scintilla of doubt and firmly we can say that the execution of abovesaid two dying declarations have to be proved by admissible evidence and merely marking the dying declaration as Exh. P-7 and Exh. P-8, is not the proof of the contents of those documents, the prosecution cannot be permitted to say by taking benefit of contents of the dying declarations which remained unspoken by the doctor who has allegedly proved them.......” “15. …. But, according to us, mere proof of handwriting on a document would not tantamount to proof of the content of the two dying declarations and the facts stated in these documents. The defence has never admitted these documents and, therefore, mere proof of handwriting of doctor on the documents or even the execution of the document would not be sufficient evidence of the truth of the facts contained in the document of dying declaration and certainly it has to be proved by some admissible evidence. The defence has never admitted these documents and, therefore, mere proof of handwriting of doctor on the documents or even the execution of the document would not be sufficient evidence of the truth of the facts contained in the document of dying declaration and certainly it has to be proved by some admissible evidence. In this context, we may profitably place reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Invest Import, [ (1981) 1 SCC 80 : AIR 1981 SC 2085 .] wherein in Para 16, it has been held by their Lordships of Supreme Court that mere proof of the handwriting of a document would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the facts stated in the document. If the truth of the facts stated in a document is in issue mere proof of the handwriting and execution of the document would not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the document. Their Lordships further held that the truth or otherwise of the facts or contents so stated would have to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e., by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the fats in issue. Hence, for no rhyme or reason the abovesaid two dying declarations (Exh. P-7 and Exh. P-8) can be placed reliance and the prosecution cannot take any advantage of these two documents which are not at all proved.” 17. N.K. Kohli (PW-1) though denied the suggestion given by the defence that signatures on Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1 are put by two different persons, but as stated above, since both the hands and specially the right hand thumb of the deceased was in burnt condition, therefore, it was not possible for him to sign so perfectly as depicted in Ex.P-1 and Ex.D-1, even the line over the signatures is straight which is not possible in case of 80% burnt signatory having his both the hands also burnt. Similar is the position as regards Ex. P-7, the dying declaration. On comparison also, these signatures are having some difference in letters. This fact also renders this document doubtful. 18. It is pertinent to mention here that on Ex.P-7 at “J to J” place there is overwriting. Similar is the position as regards Ex. P-7, the dying declaration. On comparison also, these signatures are having some difference in letters. This fact also renders this document doubtful. 18. It is pertinent to mention here that on Ex.P-7 at “J to J” place there is overwriting. Though it is denied by Anil Kumar Kushwah (PW-15) that by overwriting words “jalaya” has been converted into “bachaya” (Bablusingh ne mujhe “bachaya” tha), but no satisfactory explanation of such overwriting has been offered by this witness. It is pertinent to mention here that the incident was happened in front of house of Bablu (PW-2) and some material has been seized in front of house of Bablu. Seizure of a Can also stated to be made in front of house of Bablu as stated by Mishrilal (PW-6) in para 4 of his statement. The place of incident was only 5 fts. away from the house of Bablu and a Can of kerosene was also placed there. It also reveals from the statement of this witness (PW- 6) that Bablu has not intimated the names of present appellants to him. The facts emerge from the statement of the witnesses renders the entire story of prosecution doubtful. 19. Brajesh (PW-3) in para 7 of his statement admits that his father has lodged a report against Ramkaran and Pradeep etc. as regards causing Marpeet with him, and therefore, there is enmity between them. Though he denied the suggestion that because of that enmity, they have prepared a concocted case against the present appellants, but by placing reliance on such enmity, the defence has examined defence witnesses on the point that appellants Ramkaran and Pradeep both were admitted in Community Health Center, Nateran before the incident. In this regard, Dr. Vijay Singh Thakur (DW-1) has stated that on 28.11.2009 he was posted as Medical Officer in Community Health Center, Nateran. Accused Ramkaran and Pradeep were admitted in the hospital having complaint of vomiting, diarrhea and fever etc. He has taken blood pressure of them and they remained admitted there till 29.11.2009 upto 6.00-6.30 in the evening. Drip was injected to them and antibiotic with some injection were also given. This witness has exhibited documents in that regard as Ex.D/5 to Ex.D/10. He has taken blood pressure of them and they remained admitted there till 29.11.2009 upto 6.00-6.30 in the evening. Drip was injected to them and antibiotic with some injection were also given. This witness has exhibited documents in that regard as Ex.D/5 to Ex.D/10. Though he admits that some pages from page 46 to 51 were torn, but that does not indicate that all entries in the register are fake and frivolous. This witness remained intact in his cross- examination. The testimony of this witness being a Government Doctor posted in Community Health Center along with the record of the hospital cannot be disbelieved and brushed aside. 20. As per the statement of Bablu (PW-2) he has sustained burn injury in his hand while extinguishing the fire from the body of the deceased. He also stated that his clothes were also to some extent burnt in the incident, but neither seizure of such clothes have been made by the police nor medical examination of such injuries was conducted. No satisfactory explanation in this regard has been offered by the prosecution. Bablu (PW-2) in his cross-examination para 17 admits categorically that :- Þ---- egkjktflag dSls tyk ;s ckr Hkh eq>s ekyqe ugha gSAß 21. It is pertinent to mention here that the record of the trial Court reveals that during trial an application on 14.9.2012 has been filed on behalf of appellant Ramkaran to call the enquiry report as regards sniffer dog visited the place of occurrence just after the incident alleging that sniffer dog entered the house of Komal Bai where Bablu had set on fire the deceased. That application vide order dated 15.9.2012 was rejected as regards enquiry report in relation to sniffer dog. But to ensure fair investigation if such report was in existence, the same ought to have been filed by the prosecution itself. That also gets importance in the light of the facts surfaced from the evidence. 22. In para 8 of the FIR (Ex.P/1) it is stated that FIR has been lodged belatedly as the complaint/deceased came barefooted. The distance of place of incident from police Station is stated to be 7 kms in para 5. Having regard to the condition of the deceased just after the incident (80 to 90% burnt), how he could be able to walk for 7 kms is not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The distance of place of incident from police Station is stated to be 7 kms in para 5. Having regard to the condition of the deceased just after the incident (80 to 90% burnt), how he could be able to walk for 7 kms is not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. In this regard, N.K.Kohli (PW-1) stated that this fact in para 8 of FIR (Ex.P/1) Þisny vkus lsß has been written by him at the instance of complainant while other witnesses stated that they brought the deceased to police Station on bicycle. In this regard, serious contradiction is on record and that also raises serious doubt on the veracity of FIR (Ex.P/1). 23. Dr. Sudhir Jain (PW-7) has not recorded history on MLC (Ex.P/6) of the deceased. If deceased was in a condition to speak, then why such history has not been taken on MLC (Ex.P/6), is not answered. He stated the he had asked the name and address of the deceased at the time of taking dying declaration by Anil Kumar Kushwaha (PW-15), but that is also not mentioned in Ex.P/7. However, Anil Kumar Kushwaha (PW-15) has stated in his testimony that doctor has not asked any question from the deceased in his presence. 24. Anil Kumar Kushwaha (PW-15) admits that requisition letter for taking dying declaration has been received from police Station, Karariya, but that is not on record. He also stated that the deceased did not reveal to him as to who had set him on fire. He stated that he had taken the dying declaration in question and answer form, but he did not ask any question as to why deceased was set on fire. He also admits that the dying declaration has been handed over to the Constable in open condition while it ought to be sent in sealed cover to the Judicial Magistrate or SDM. It also reveals from dying declaration (Ex.P/7) that there was no noting that it is read over to the deceased and deceased accepted it to be true. These facts renders the dying declaration (Ex.P/7) doubtful. 25. It also reveals from dying declaration (Ex.P/7) that there was no noting that it is read over to the deceased and deceased accepted it to be true. These facts renders the dying declaration (Ex.P/7) doubtful. 25. So far as police statement of the deceased (Ex.P/20) is concerned, it has been taken by Ajeet Patil (PW-10) on 29.11.2009 at 13.30 hours, but it appears that this document is prepared as police statement of the deceased under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It has not been taken as dying declaration of the deceased. On the same point, dying declaration (Ex.P/7) has been taken and also FIR (Ex.P/1). Moreso, in this regard, Ajeet Patil (PW-10) admits in his cross-examination that Ex.P/20 is not in his handwriting. His statement was taken by another police personnel. In para 25 of his cross-examination he admits that the police statement (Ex.P/20) of the deceased has been taken by his Reader Bharat Singh, but a note to that effect has not been appended on Ex.P/20 that this document has been written on his dictation. He though stated that he has injury on his finger, but he admits that in spite of such injury he has signed the document. He again stated that he himself prepared spot map (Ex.P/5) on the same day at 17:00 hours in spite of injury in the finger. Therefore, the explanation is not found to be satisfactory that because of injury in his finger he was not capable to take the statement of the deceased under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is worthy to mention here that Reader Bharatsingh who has taken this statement (Ex.P/20) has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. It also revealed from the statement (Ex.P/20) that there is no note of the doctor as regards condition of the deceased regardless of the fact that statement has been taken in the hospital where the doctors usually remain available and such note can very well be taken on this document, but omission of taking such note is not satisfactorily explained by this witness. 26. The Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Bakshu and others vs. State of Maharashtra , (2007) 11 SCC 269 has held as under : “13........There was no mention in the dying declaration that it was read over and explained to the deceased. 26. The Apex Court in the case of Shaikh Bakshu and others vs. State of Maharashtra , (2007) 11 SCC 269 has held as under : “13........There was no mention in the dying declaration that it was read over and explained to the deceased. The trial court and the High Court concluded that even though it is not so stated, it has to be presumed that it was read over and explained. The view is clearly unacceptable.” 27. The Apex Court in the case of Mehiboobsab Abbasabi Nadaf v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 13 SCC 112 has held as under : “ 7. Conviction can indisputably be based on a dying declaration. But, before it can be acted upon, the same must be held to have been rendered voluntarily and truthfully. Consistency in the dying declaration is the relevant factor for placing full reliance thereupon. In this case, the deceased herself had taken contradictory and inconsistent stand in different dying declarations. They, therefore, should not be accepted on their face value. Caution, in this behalf, is required to be applied.” 28. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar , (2005) 9 SCC 769 has held as under : “ 10. While appreciating the credibility of the evidence produced before the court, the court must view the evidence as a whole and come to a conclusion as to its genuineness and truthfulness. The mere fact that two different versions are given but one name is common in both of them cannot be a ground for convicting the named person. The court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful. If there are two dying declarations giving two different versions, a serious doubt is created about the truthfulness of the dying declarations. It may be that if there was any other reliable evidence on record, this Court could have considered such corroborative evidence to test the truthfulness of the dying declarations. The two dying declarations, however, in the instant case stand by themselves and there is no other reliable evidence on record by reference to which their truthfulness can be tested. It is well settled that one piece of unreliable evidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliable evidence. The two dying declarations, however, in the instant case stand by themselves and there is no other reliable evidence on record by reference to which their truthfulness can be tested. It is well settled that one piece of unreliable evidence cannot be used to corroborate another piece of unreliable evidence. The High Court while considering the evidence on record has rightly applied the principles laid down by this Court in Thurukanni Pompiah v. State of Mysore [ AIR 1965 SC 939 : (1965) 2 Cri LJ 31] and Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [ 1958 SCR 552 : 1958 Cri LJ 106] .” 29. The Apex Court in the case of Murugesan v. State , (2012) 10 SCC 383 has held as under : “38.........The efficacy of the dying declaration (Ext. P-4) when the maker thereof had slipped into a coma even before completing the statement would have a serious effect on the capacity of D-1 to make such a statement. The certification made by PW 21 with regard to the condition of the deceased is definitely not the last word. Though ordinarily and in the normal course such an opinion should be accepted and acted upon by the court, in cases where the circumstances so demand, such opinions must be carefully balanced with all other surrounding facts and circumstances. All the above, in our view, demonstrates the fragile nature of the conclusions reached by the High Court in the present case.” 30. The Apex Court in the case of Balak Ram v. State of U.P. , (1975) 3 SCC 219 has held as under : “ 53. ....Investigating Officers are keenly interested in the fruition of their efforts and though we do not suggest that any assumption can be made against their veracity, it is not prudent to base the conviction on a dying declaration made to an Investigating Officer.....” 31. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases buttresses the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants. 32. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion and also having regard to the law laid down aforesaid cases, the appellants in this case certainly deserve benefit of doubt. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases buttresses the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants. 32. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion and also having regard to the law laid down aforesaid cases, the appellants in this case certainly deserve benefit of doubt. The oral testimony or oral dying declarations as stated by the witnesses did not inspire confidence of the Court and so far as written dying declarations Ex.P/1, Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/20 are concerned, they are also not found proved beyond reasonable doubt. The law is settled in this regard that accused shall be deemed to be innocent until proven guilty and prosecution is duty bound to establish its case beyond doubt. Wherever two views are possible from the evidence, the view supporting the accused shall prevail. Doubt however strong cannot taken place of proof. The judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu , (2016 ) 14 SCC 151 and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. , (2023) 6 SCC 605 are referable in this regard. Here in this case also, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. 33. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 302 /34 of IPC by giving benefit of doubt. Appellants No.1 & 2, Ramkaran & Pradeep, are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged. Appellant No.3- Prakash is in jail, he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.