- (1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. Heard Sri P. K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as Sri A. K. Sachan and Sri VC. Katiyar, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS is a revision against the acquit tal passed by the 11nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rampur vide order dated 17-12-1997. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that in this case there is dying declaration and still the learned lower Court acquitted the accused before dis cussing the merits, it is stated that dying declaration itself is not sufficient for con viction. It is fact that sufficient weight must be given to the dying declaration consider ing the facts that a person at the time of death will not tell a lie. However, when it is clear that dying declaration was not cor rect on facts, no reliance can be placed on such dying declaration. This dying declaration was recorded by the doctor which was not produced in the Court. Although the genuineness was admitted but that does not mean that contents were also ad mitted. Further, learned Counsel for the opposite party brought my attention to very contradictory facts stated by the wit nesses of the facts and therefore, dying declaration was rightly not upheld by the Court below. It may be also stated that only illegality can be looked into in the revision. The fact that the learned lower Court did not rely upon the dying declaration does not mean that any illegality was com mitted. From the statement of the wit nesses as well as considering the dying declaration, it is very much clear that the deceased made efforts to falsely implicated so many persons. According to the com plainant there were only eight accused per sons at the time of occurrence, but con sidering the statement of other persons as well as dying declaration it is made out that the number was raised to as many as 20 persons. It is also clear from the reading of the evidence that the place of occurrence was also contradictory, if dying declaration betaken into consideration. From the evidence on record, it is also clear that the witnesses were given contradictory statement about facts as to which of the accused was armed with which specific weapon. Learned Counsel for the opposite party also contended that even (sic) is clear that the occurrence did not take place in the morning as alleged by the witnesses because there was semi digested food found in the body of the one deceased who died on the spot and it is clear that the occurrences took place some time in the night.
(3.) CONSIDERING all the facts, it is clear that the learned lower Court committed no illegality in acquitting the accused per son and there is no force in the revision. It is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;