Youth gets life term in murder case
New Delhi: A youth has been sentenced to life term for murdering a man by a Delhi court, which relied on the victim’s dying declaration.
Additional Sessions Judge Paramjit Singh handed down the sentence to Delhi resident Satish Kumar for killing one Pankaj after they had an altercation in 2012.
“It is evident that the dying declaration is admissible in evidence provided that it is of such nature that it inspires confidence of the court in its truthfulness and correctness,” the judge observed.
The court said that it is clear that at the time of making dying declaration Pankaj was in a fit state of mind and was capable of making the statement.
“In addition, the dying declaration also inspires full confidence as there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. Nothing material has come on record to show that it was
not truthful or correct,” it said.
The court, while observing that the case did not fall in the rarest of rare category, awarded him life term and also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000.
It relied on the deposition of the victim’s brother Karan, who said that Satish and another person used to harass him on his way to school and snatch money from him regularly. When he told his elder brother Pankaj about it, he met Satish to sort out the matter but was instead stabbed to death.
The court, while convicting Satish, also took considered the post mortem report, according to which his large intestine and left kidney were torn which “was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature”.
After his statement was recorded, Pankaj succumbed to injuries on January 2, 2013, it said.
In his dying declaration, the victim told the police that near Palam Colony here, he had an altercation with Satish, who then took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed him in his abdomen on December 21, 2012.
During the trial, Satish had claimed he was falsely implicated in the case and produced witnesses in his support.
However, the court refused to believe defence witnesses, saying there were material discrepancies in their statements and being relatives of Satish, they appeared to be interested witnesses.