Delhi High Court Upholds Murder Convict's Life Sentence, Flags 'Tunnel Vision' In Policing Over Omission In Dying Declaration Details
The Delhi High Court has upheld the life sentence of a murder convict nearly 24 years after the crime, while analysing how police officers performing para-police functions perceive and respond to emergencies.
The appeals arose from a murder case in which the prosecution relied heavily on an oral dying declaration made by the victim soon after the incident. The defence sought to discredit this declaration by pointing to an apparent inconsistency: the initial PCR wireless message sent by Head Constable did not mention the names of the assailants, even though his subsequent testimony attributed the dying declaration to the deceased.
According to the appellants, this omission showed that the dying declaration was fabricated, and that the prosecution version could not be sustained.
The division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav however rejected this argument, holding that such an approach overlooks how police officers react in moments of crisis.
The Court undertook a careful examination of what it described as “tunnel vision” in policing. In the present case, since the constable concerned was performing para-police functions, being posted in the police control room, the Court said his experience dragged him to tunnel vision mode where he recorded the wireless message relating to transportation of the victim to the hospital, and lost focus from ascertaining identity of a criminal.
In the Court's words, “It is a matter of common knowledge that the police control room is the central hub for police operations responsible for: (i) emergency response-acting as the public's first point of contact for emergencies, handling calls and dispatching resources, (ii) maintaining records of operational acts such as dispatches…With this tunnel vision, his brain functioned only to the aspect of recollection of certain events, necessary for performance of his duties. Duty of ascertaining identity of a criminal was not be performed by him, hence this was what to him into the narrow perspective of recording facts in that regard.”
The Court further explained that the constable recalled the factum of the victim naming the assailants, only when he received a cue from other police personnel present there. This, the Court explained, is part of humans' mental process.
The Court thus concluded that in the PCR message, “facts were presented by him being in tunnel vision mode and when given a cue on rehearsal the contents of dying declaration, he could recall the same before the SHO as well as before the Trial Court,”.
As such, the Court refused to disbelieve the constable and upheld the conviction based on oral dying declaration.
Appearance: Mr. Bharat Dubey, Ms. Shubhlaxmi Dubey, Ms. Sonia Dubey, Ms. Taniya Kapoor and Ms. Ayesha Sharif, Advs. alongwith Appellant for Appellant; Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State. Inspector Yogesh Singh, PS Mandir Marg for Respondent
Case title: Mohan @ Akkar v. State
Case no.: CRL.A. 51/2002