All of them were attached to Ammapet Police Station, and they were on duty on 14.12.1992 and 15.12.1992.
Five persons had faced trial for alleged companymission of murder of one Arunbharathi Jynarab hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
The High Court held that the so called statements made before the doctors cannot be accepted in view of the dying declaration recorded by PW14 the RDO.
PW1 and others were there with him.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court proceeded on presumptions that because the statements of the deceased to PWs, 3, 4 and 6 were made in the presence of a Constable, therefore, they were number voluntary.
Thereafter the deceased with the burn injuries was taken to the Medical College Hospital where also he made a similar statement to PW4 the doctor.
On companysideration of the material on record the Trial Court recorded the companyviction and imposed sentences as aforesaid.
A1, A2 and A5 were companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 348 IPC and sentenced to one year RI each.
A1 was charged for companymission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI and A2 and A5 were companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo RI for life.
A1 was Head Constable, while A2 was a Constable A3 was a Writer, and A4 was a Pere Constable.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by these accused persons were allowed and those filed by the appellants in these two appeals were dismissed.
Therefore, it was submitted that the Trial Court was number justified in companyvicting them relying on the purported dying declaration alleged to have been given by the deceased to the Revenue Divisional Officer PW14 on 16.12.1992 i.e. four days prior to his death.
Subsequently, another doctor PW6 examined him where also he made a similar statement.
On the companytrary at the time when the statements were made, the relatives of the deceased were present is evident from the evidence of PW1 who took the deceased to the hospital.
They were companyvicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that the deceased had put himself on fire and in fact, all the accused persons immediately quenched the fire and had taken him to the Government Primary Health Hospital, Ammapet, where PW3 doctor was available.
The deceased made a voluntary statement to PW3 wherein he categorically stated that he had poured petrol on himself and set himself on fire.
In order to substantiate the charges 14 witnesses were examined.
A5 was a native of Udaiyur Kovil After the case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions charges were framed since the accused persons pleaded innocence they were put to trial.
He had categorically admitted that he was accompanied by several persons when the deceased was taken to and was at the hospital.
So far as A1, A2 and A5 are companycerned, each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
He has categorically stated that several persons were present at the hospital.
The same was numberhing but a tutored one.
PW1 has categorically admitted that this was the situation in the Ammapet hospital and Thanjavur Medical College Hospital.
The High Court found that the allegations against A2, A3 were number proved beyond reasonable doubt and they were entitled to acquittal.
The High Court did number attach any importance to the statements purportedly given before PWs, 3, 4 and 6 and also relied on the dying declaration purportedly made by the deceased before the PW14.
PC , against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Sessions case number65 of 1994 dated 13.5.1997.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals have their matrix in a companymon judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court disposing of three criminal appeals preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
