Legal provisions involved: Sections 120B, 302, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS)

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India

Judge/Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts

The deceased and his father had set up a sweets stall at a village fair in 1990. A dispute arose when three men allegedly refused to pay for sweets. Later, while returning home, the deceased was allegedly intercepted near a dam, attacked with sticks and other weapons, and died from his injuries. The informant later claimed that the accused were close relatives with whom there was pre-existing enmity.

Key legal provisions

Sections 120B, 302, 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 61, 103, 190 of BNS) , 1860; Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS)

Issues raised

Whether the alleged oral dying declaration was reliable and whether procedural lapses vitiated the conviction?

Arguments of the case 

The prosecution relied on the dying declaration and circumstantial evidence. The defense argued faulty investigation, non-examination of key witnesses, and improper questioning under Section 313 CrPC.

Judgement 

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that the deceased was not in a condition to speak, material witnesses were deliberately withheld, and serious procedural defects existed. The accused were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.