Mumbai: Can’t solely rely just on dying declaration, says Court

The Dindoshi sessions court has acquitted a 30yearold security guard Rudrasen Yadav in the murder case of one Ashok Pandey which occurred on May 21 2017 The court stated that the police failed to prove their case emphasising the inability to rely solely on the verbal dying declaration made to the complainant Abhishek Singh the supervisor of Yadav and Pandey who was the accusedrsquos colleague The court also highlighted the failure of the police to collect fingerprints from the wooden stick allegedly used to beat the deceasedThe incident occurred in the watchmanrsquos room of Azami Compound in Sakinaka Pandey feeling unwell went there to rest and the accused having returned from duty was also inside the roomIt is alleged that at approximately 255 am on the day of the incident Singh received a phone call on his mobile and learned that the accused had beaten the deceased resulting in injuries Consequently Singh promptly went to the watchmanrsquos room accompanied by witness Ashitosh Jaiswal the accused and another watchman named Raffudin Upon entering the room they found that Pandeyrsquos head and back were wounded Singh then called an ambulance but before it arrived he questioned Pandey and the latter revealed that during the night while he was asleep Yadav assaulted him with a wooden stick Subsequently the complainant and Jaiswal transported Pandey to Rajawadi hospital and from there he was transferred to Sion hospital Upon examination the doctor at Sion hospital declared him dead before admitting himSingh told the court that as he entered the room on the day of the incident he saw a severely injured Pandey lying on a mattress on the floor The accused Jaiswal and Raffudin were standing outside the said room He then came out of the room and called an ambulance after which he entered the room again and asked Pandey what had happened The deceased told him that he had been beaten by Yadav with a wooden stick Singh did not put more questions to himDefenceSpeakThe defence lawyer Aamir Malik argued in court that there was a significant contradiction regarding the timing of the dying declaration While the informant claimed the declaration was made around 330 am the official record indicated the deceased had died at 255 am ldquoThis inconsistency raises doubts about relying solely on the dying declaration especially since the informant did not bring other witnesses into the room at the timerdquo he saidMalik emphasised that an oral dying declaration without corroboration is risky to rely upon for conviction Additionally he pointed out that the investigation officer failed to collect fingerprints of the accused which is detrimental to the prosecutionrsquos caseMalik also told the court that there was no documentation proving that the accused was employed by the security firm of the complainantThe verdictThe court order read ldquoIt appears that the panch witness 1 who is the informant admitted during crossexamination that the condition of the deceased was serious and he was not communicating properly It is evident that the conversation between the panch witness 1 informant and the deceased was not witnessed or heard by any independent person despite the presence of independent individuals at the scenerdquoThe order further states ldquoIt is true on the sole basis of dying declaration an accused can be convicted However it is clear that it must be reliable trustworthy and inspire confidence of the court If the dying declaration is doubtful there must be some corroborative evidence In this case the investigation officer had not taken fingerprints of the accused on the seized fibre stick wooden stick and other seized materialrdquoWhile acquitting the accused after six years the court has said ldquoIt is cardinal principle of the criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the foundational facts of the case In this case no foundational facts were proved by the prosecution No evidence was brought on record about the motive of the crime It is clear that there is no eyewitness against the accused Therefore it is very difficult to convict the accused only on a onesentence oral dying declaration and said declaration is not free from doubt and does not inspire the confidence of the court No corroborative evidence came on record about the dying declarationrdquoMay 21Day in 2017 when death occurred