LAW FOR ALL

Section 302/498-A read with Section 34 IPC - Except dying declaration - no corroboration evidence - conviction against co- accused - apex court held that Admittedly, they were not put on trial along with the main accused- appellant Mahender Singh. It was only at the stage of Section 319, Cr.P.C. the accused persons namely Prem Kumar Gulati and his wife were summoned and put on trial. Except dying declaration there is nothing on record to strongly suggest that they were involved in the commission of crime. There is nothing in the findings of sessions court which suggest that the said accused persons participated in the commission of the aforesaid crime, and this fact has been reiterated by the High Court also.PW-2, the police officer deposed that he recorded the statement of several persons and collected all the papers including ration card and compromise letter written to the Panchayat etc. He further deposed that during the investigation, the accused Prem Kumar and Bimla were found innocent as they were living separately. Although the trial court and the appellate court convicted both the accused Prem Kumar Gulati and his wife Bimla, but after scrutiny of all the evidence, we are of the view that there are no corroborative evidence to come to the conclusion that these two participated along with the main accused Mahender Singh for the commission of the offence. As noticed above, one of the accused Bimla already expired. We do not find any reason why Prem Kumar also participated in the commission of the offence. Admittedly, neither in the dying declaration nor in the statement of witnesses it has come in light as to what act was done by the accused- Prem Kumar.In our considered opinion, the benefit of doubt should be given to accused-appellant Prem Kumar and his conviction cannot be sustained.Criminal Appeal No.1422 of 2009 is allowed and the appellant Prem Kumar Gulati is acquitted from charges. He is directed to be released forthwith.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1422 OF 2009 Prem Kumar Gulati ….Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ..Respondents = 2014- Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41951