Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010190382020 2026:GAU-AS:5034- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRL.A(J)/105/2020 DINESH RAO JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY PP, ASSAM. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. M. Barman, Amicus Curiae Advocate for the respondents: Ms. B. Bhuyan, Addl. PP Date on which judgment is reserved : 10.02.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.04.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes Page No.# 2/13 JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Nelson Sailo, J Heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Amicus Curiae for the convict (hereafter referred to as the appellant) and Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. [2.] This appeal from jail is directed against the judgment dated 14.02.2020 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No.1/2017 corresponding to GR Case No.4752/2016 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) only with a default clause. [3.] The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Smt. Rumita Kurmi lodged an ejahar before the Officer-In-Charge, Mariani Police Station on 18.09.2016 to the effect that at around 01:00 am on that day i.e., 18.09.2016, while her brother was enjoying Manasha Puja Celebration at line No.9 on Hunuwal Tea Estate, all of a sudden the appellant Shri. Dinesh Rao caused grievous injury to his brother by stabbing him on his stomach with a sharp knife. The injured was taken and treated at Jorhat Medical College. The complainant therefore by filing the ejahar requested that necessary action be taken in this regard. [4.] On receipt of the ejahar Mariani PS Case No.170/2016 dated 18.09.2016 was registered against the appellant under Section 326 IPC and the matter was investigated into. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map and recorded the statements of witnesses and also arrested the appellant. The injured person in the meantime succumbed to his injuries in the hospital and a post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Page No.# 3/13 Officer finding a prima facie case established against the appellant under Section 326/302 IPC filed the charge-sheet. [5.] Upon filing of the Charge-sheet as stated above, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC by the learned Trial Judge on 18.01.2017 where the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial was conducted and in the process, the prosecution examined as many as 7(seven) prosecution witnesses which included the informant, the doctor who conducted post-mortem examination and the Investigating Officer amongst others. After the prosecution completed the examination of their witnesses, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and the incriminating materials which appeared against him in the prosecution’s evidence were put across to him to enable him to explain as to what actually happened. The appellant however refused to give any comments to the questions put to him except for saying that he was not at home and therefore he did not know anything. On being asked as to whether he wanted to adduce any evidence, his reply was in the negative. Consequently, the learned Trial Court upon hearing the rival parties, passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner as already stated in the preceding paragraphs. [6.] The learned Amicus Curiae submits that there were no eye witnesses who witnessed the alleged crime and that conviction was based solely on the oral statements and declaration made by the deceased person as to who had stabbed him and had caused grievous injury on his person. She submits that not only was the dying declaration an oral declaration but the mental fitness of the victim was also not ascertained so as to see whether he was able to make such a declaration. She submits that the victim did not die immediately after he was stabbed and that he was in the hospital for a few days. Such being the case, without the Page No.# 4/13 fitness of the victim being ascertained, it would be unsafe to rely on his oral declaration to convict the appellant. [7.] Besides the above, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that no murder weapon was recovered and that the blood stains were also not sent for FSL examination. She therefore submits that the prosecution has only failed to discharge the burden of proving the case against the appellant with proof beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the impugned judgment and order being unsustainable should be set aside while the appellant acquitted of the charge. To support her submission, the learned Amicus Curiae has led us through the materials available on record including the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Amicus Curiae in support of her submission with regard to the fitness of the deceased person to make such declaratory statement before he died has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Heikrujam Chaoba Singh Vs. State of Manipur reported in (1999) 8 SCC 458. [8.] Per-contra the learned Addl. P.P. Ms. B. Bhuyan, submits that it can be seen from the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses that there is corroboration in their statements and therefore, they are reliable. She submits that it cannot be said that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and therefore their statements should not be relied upon. She submits that in fact PW-2 is an independent witness and his version is corroborated by the version of PW-1 and PW-3 and PW-4 amongst others. As regards the state of mind of the victim, the Investigating Officer who was examined as PW-7 clearly stated that he found the victim to be in a condition to respond the query at the time of his admission to the hospital. Although he did not record any dying declaration of the injured victim his statements has not been rebutted or falsified by the defence. She further submits that non-seizure of the weapon Page No.# 5/13 used for commission of the crime is not fatal to the case of the prosecution in view of a fact that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses corroborates with each other. This apart, the findings and opinion rendered by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased person goes to show that death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage following the injuries sustained as described in the report. That the injury was ante-mortem and caused by sharp pointed weapon and homicidal in nature. Such being the position, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court and therefore this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order. In support of her submissions, the learned Addl. P.P. relies upon the following authorities: (i) Paniben (Smt) Vs. State of Gujarat (1992) 2 SCC 474 and (ii) Panneerselvam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) 17 SCC 190. [9.] We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and we have also perused the materials available on record. In order to find out as to whether the appellant’s conviction should be interfered with or upheld, we proceed to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. As already stated, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. PW-1 is the informant and the sister of the victim. In her examination-in-chief she deposed that on the day of the incident there was Manasha Puja Celebration in the tea garden and the victim had gone to enjoy puja festivities while she was at home. It was then that her brother came running home with some injuries in his abdomen and he informed her that the appellant had stabbed him with a knife. Her other brother whose name was Ajay took the victim to the hospital and after undergoing treatment for 3(three) days in the Page No.# 6/13 hospital, the victim died. She therefore lodged an ejahar before the Police Station which was written down as per her version and she then put her thumb impression on the ejahar. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not mention in the ejahar that she heard from her brother that accused had stabbed him with a knife and that it was not a fact that she had made a false statement about the victim having told her that the accused had stabbed him with a knife. She stated that her brother was taken to the Tea Garden Hospital and thereafter to Jorhat Hospital. She also stated that the place where Manasha Puja Celebration was held was about 200 feet away from her house. [10.] PW-2 in her examination-in-chief stated that the informant was her elder sister and he knew the accused person as well as the victim. He too had gone to see the Manasha Puja Celebration and while he was there, Arjun came and informed him that someone had stabbed the victim with a knife. He then went to the house of the victim and saw that he suffered injuries in his stomach and was vomiting. The victim told him that the accused had stabbed him in his belly with a knife. The victim’s mother and his elder brother took the victim to the Garden Hospital and later on to Jorhat Civil Hospital for better treatment. The Victim however died in Jorhat Civil Hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say how many people were in the place where the puja celebration took place and that he did not state before the police that it was after coming to the house of the victim that he came to know from him that the accused person had stabbed him with a knife. [11.] PW-3 in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew both the informant and the accused person and also the deceased as well. According to him on the day of incident, he slept at around 11:00 pm and upon hearing his mother and others scream, he woke up and saw the victim with a stab injury caused by a knife. On being asked, the victim replied that Page No.# 7/13 the accused person have stabbed him. They then took the victim to the Tea Garden Hospital but as the injury was of grievous nature, they took him to Jorhat Civil Hospital where the victim died. He also stated that the victim did not tell them as to why he was stabbed. His elder sister thereafter lodged an FIR before the Police Station. In his cross-examination, PW-3 reiterated what he stated in his examination-in-chief. [12.]PW-4 in his examination-in-chief stated that he knows the informant, the accused persons as well as the victim who in fact was his nephew. On the day of the incident he was at home and the following day Chutu Kurmi informed him that the accused persons had stabbed the victim with a knife and that he died later on. On receipt of the information he went to the hospital and saw the victim’s dead body. In his cross-examination, besides reiterating what he stated in his examination-in-chief, PW-4 stated that he did not see the occurrence of the incident. [13.] PW-5 is the mother of the victim and in her examination-in-chief she stated that the informant is her daughter and that she does not know the accused person whose house was one line apart from their house. She stated that on the day of the incident, there was Manasha Puja Celebration in their garden and the victim went to enjoy the puja festivities. He came back around 02:00 am with injuries in his belly which was wrapped with a gamusa. After opening the door when she asked what had happened, the victim replied that the accused person had stabbed him with a knife. Thereafter, they took him to Mariani Tea Garden Hospital and then the Jorhat Civil Hospital. They also gave information to the police at the Police Station. The victim expired after undergoing treatment for 3(three) days in Jorhat Hospital. PW-5 stated that her son told her that it was the accused person who had stabbed him on the road near the place where the puja celebration was going on. In her cross- Page No.# 8/13 examination she stated that she did not witness the incident and that she did not know as to whether her son used to go to the house of the accused person to watch television. Beside this, PW-5 reiterated what she stated in her examination-in-chief. [14.] PW-6 is the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead- body. PW-6 in his examination-in-chief stated that on 21.09.2016 he was posted at Jorhat Medical College and Hospital as Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine and he performed post-mortem examination of the deceased person. PW-6 reproduced what was stated in the PME report as regards the wound, position and character and the opinion rendered. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage because of the injuries sustained as was described. The injury was ante-mortem and caused by sharp pointed weapon and homicidal in nature. The cross-examination of the PW-6 was declined by the defense. [15.] PW-7 in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 18.09.2016 while he was posted at Mariani Police Station as Second Officer, Ajay Kurmi and Kamal Kurmi (PW-2 and PW-3) came to the police station at 02:00 and informed that the accused person had stabbed the victim while he was witnessing Manasha Puja. The Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station after making GD Entry vide No.411, dated 18.09.2016 instructed him to visit the place of occurrence. After getting the information, he went to Sonowal Tea Garden Hospital and he met the injured person on the way to the Hospital and came to know that he was referred to JMCH for better treatment. He took the injured person in his official vehicle to JMCH and upon enquiring as to what had happened, the victim told him that the accused person had stabbed him. After admitting the injured person to the hospital, he returned back to the Police Station and went to the Tea Garden in search of the accused person. He however could Page No.# 9/13 not find the accused person in his residence and after inquiring from the mother, he came to know that he had gone to see Manasha Puja. PW-7 also stated that although he searched the residence of the accused person, he could not recover any blood stained weapon. In the morning, the complainant lodged the ejahar in the Police Station and the Officer-in-Charge after registering a case, entrusted him to investigate into the matter. He then went to the place of occurrence again and drew a sketch map of the same while recording the statements of the witnesses. He then arrested the accused person on 18.09.2016 and took him to the Police Station where his statements were recorded. PW-7 stated that on 20.09.2016, he went to JMCH to meet the injured person but came to know from his family members that the injured person had already expired. He saw the dead body of the deceased person in the Hospital. Thereafter inquest was done on the dead body and also post-mortem examination was also conducted by the Medical Officer. PW-7 also stated that he made a prayer before the Court for adding Section 302 IPC as the victim had expired. He also took the statement of 2(two) witnesses, namely, Faran Orang and Lilabor Kurmi. After completion of his investigation, he filed the report against the accused person under Section 326/302 IPC.PW-7 in his cross-examination stated that on the morning of 18.09.2016, he went to the place of occurrence and the ejahar was filed at 10:30 am. That he could not record the statements of the witnesses, namely, Julika Kurmi and Bobita Kurmi and Bibesh Rao as shown in the sketch map. On the south of the sketch map, one shop was situated but the same was closed and due to which, the statement of the owner of the shop could not be recorded. He could not record the statement of the person shown in the sketch map and that could not seize any articles at the place of occurrence. He took the statement of the witnesses, namely, Ajay Kurmi and Kamal Kurmi at the Police Station and that he did not take any statement of the Page No.# 10/13 witnesses in the Hospital. The injured victim was admitted at the Hospital at about 03:00 am in the morning on 18.09.2016 and he was in a condition to respond to the query. That he did not record any dying declaration of the injured victim and he expired in the Hospital on 20.09.2016. He also stated that he did not mention the date of submitting a prayer for adding Section 302 IPC in the Case Diary nor the authority before whom such a prayer was made. He also stated that PW-2 has not stated to him that the accused person had caused stabbed injury to the victim. That PW-3 did not tell him that on the day of occurrence, he was sleeping in his residence and after hearing hue and cry he came to the residence of Bikash and Bikash told him that the accused had caused stabbed injury on him. PW-7 stated that he did not record statement of any eye witnesses in the case and denied of not having conducted the case properly. [16.] From the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it may be seen that the version of PW-1 who is the informant is corroborated by the statement/deposition given by PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7. All these prosecution witnesses in their examination-in-chief stated that the victim upon being asked had informed them that it was the accused person who had stabbed him. The victim was said to have been stabbed on 18.09.2016 and he succumbed to his injury in JMCH on 20.09.2016. PW-7 in his cross-examination stated that the victim at the time of his admission in the Hospital was in a condition to respond to the query and that he himself had taken the victim in his official vehicle to JMCH. It was during that time that he had enquired from the victim as to who had caused the stab injury and to which, the victim had stated that it was the accused person who had done it. The Apex Court in the case of Paniben (Smt) (Supra), upon examining and considering various authorities on the evidentiary value of a dying declaration held that such a declaration should inspire full Page No.# 11/13 confidence of the Court in its correctness and the Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. Further, the Court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and able to identify the assailants. Paragraph No.17 and 18 of the said judgment may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal: “17. The situation in which a man on death bed is so solemn and serene when he is dying - the grave position in which he is placed, is the reason in law to accept the veracity of his statement. It is for this reason the requirements of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with. Besides, should the dying declaration be excluded it will result in mis-carriage of justice because the victim being generally the only eye witness in a serious crime, the exclusion of the statement would leave the Court without a scrap of evidence. 18. Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination. Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under: (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. (Munnu Raja v. State of M.P) (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav; Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar). (iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor). (iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without Page No.# 12/13 corroborative evidence. (Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P.) (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of M.P.) (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram Manorath v. State of U.P.) (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu) (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. (Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar) (ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy itself whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P.) (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan)” [17.]From the above abstracted, it may be seen that according to the Apex Court, there is neither rule of law nor of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration. If the Court finds the declaration to be true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. The Apex Court however observed that only when there is a suspicion or doubt in the dying declaration, it should not be acted upon without corroboration. In the present case the injured victim had consistently maintained the fact that it was the accused person who had stabbed him without there being any variation. [18.]From a careful appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, we do not even remotely find that such a declaration is as a result of the injured person being tutored, Page No.# 13/13 prompted or a product of his imagination. The Investigating Officer in fact has clearly stated that when he took the injured person to the hospital in his official vehicle after the occurrence of the incident, he found him to be in a condition to respond to the query made to him. Therefore, under the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to doubt the declaration made by the injured victim importantly, when there is no element of suspicion attributable from the materials available on record. As such, the requirement of the fitness of the deceased person to make a declaration as held by the Apex Court in Heikrujam Chaoba Singh (Supra) is found to be fulfilled. In other words, the declaration made by the victim is found to be reliable and truthful. [19.] Thus upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The appeal is accordingly found to be without merit and the same is dismissed. Registry to send back the TCR. [20.] For the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. M. Barman, she shall be paid fees as entitled to her by the Assam State Legal Services Authority. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant