Krishna Kumar J. - (1.) This revision has been filed against acquittal of opposite party Nos. 1 to 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties did not appear to argue the case inspite of opportunity allowed to them on 3.11.1999 and 2.12.1999. I heard the learned counsel for the revisionist only. It is contended that the learned lower Court was accepting the part of the version of dying declaration but did not accept the whole version of the dying declaration wherein he also mentioned the name of the accused person. From the F.I.R. it is clear that the first informant Pradeep Kumar was present but from the dying declaration of the deceased Anil Kumar it is clear that when the fire was made upon him nobody else was there and therefore none of the witnesses could be knowing as to who actually made fire and caused death of Anil Kumar. There is also identification memo four witnesses were put for identification of one Kamar All Khan but none of the witnesses identified him. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the whole of the dying declaration must have been accepted is not convincing because according to the deceased nobody else was there at the time of actual firing. Apart from the dying declaration there must be some supporting evidence for conviction. It may also be mentioned that finding of the facts of the lower Court cannot be set aside easily because it was the learned lower Court she actually recorded the statement and perused the demnure of the witnesses. From the evidence discussed by the learned lower Court it is clear that P.W. 2 Vijai Kumar had admitted that the accused were shown to him at the police station and he reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence and he has also stated that the informant Pradeep Kumar was not present there at the place of occurrence when he reached there nor any of the accused was there. P.W. III also did not see any occurrence he however arrested Anil Sumer Raju alias Titto and Vinay. He how-ever stated that there was 6 to 7 present he did not state about the presence of Pradeep the informant and he himself was not an eye-witness. It may also be stated that dying declaration is also not proved. The doctor who give certificate and in whose presence the dying declaration was recorded was not examined by the prosecution. The P.W. IV Dr. Sahid only stated that he examined the injured Anil Kumar at 10.45 p.m. on 24.2.1998 he however stated that the injured did not tole him as to who caused him injury. The officer who recorded dying declaration was also not examined in this case. The defence has only admitted genuineness of the documents but that does not mean that all the contents were admitted. Under such circumstance even dying declaration was not fully reliable documents and except that there was no evidence worth reliable to support the prosecution case.
(2.) From the discussion of the judgment it is made out that the presence of the witness Pradeep Kumar was highly doubtful. Considering the facts there is nothing in the judgment and order which may raise finger against any of the finding of the lower Court. There is no force in the revision. It is hereby rejected. Revision Dismissed.;