The Delhi High Court has upheld the life sentence of a murder convict nearly twenty-four years after the incident. While doing so, the Court examined the concept of “tunnel vision” in police functioning during emergency situations.
The appeals arose from a murder case where the prosecution relied on an oral dying declaration made by the victim shortly after the attack. The defence challenged the declaration’s credibility. It pointed to an omission in the initial PCR wireless message, which did not mention the names of the assailants. However, the concerned Head Constable later testified that the deceased had named the accused.
The appellants argued that this discrepancy showed fabrication. They contended that the conviction could not stand.
Division Bench Rejects Defence Argument
A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav rejected the defence contention.
The Court explained that police personnel often operate under extreme pressure during emergency response. In this case, the Head Constable worked in the Police Control Room and performed para-police duties. His primary responsibility involved coordinating emergency response and arranging medical aid.
Therefore, when he transmitted the wireless message, he focused on shifting the injured victim to the hospital. The Court held that omission of the assailants’ names in that message did not negate the existence of a dying declaration.
Understanding “Tunnel Vision” in Policing
The Bench discussed the idea of “tunnel vision” in crisis situations. It observed that PCR officials prioritize urgent operational tasks such as dispatch coordination and medical assistance. They do not conduct investigations at that stage.
The Court described the PCR as the central hub for emergency operations. It handles distress calls, coordinates dispatches, and records essential information. Consequently, the constable concentrated on immediate response rather than detailed identification of offenders.
Cognitive Recall and Later Testimony
The Court further noted that the constable later recalled the victim naming the accused when other officers prompted him. The Bench considered this consistent with normal human memory. Often, people recall details after cues trigger recollection.
The Court found that while operating in “tunnel vision mode,” the constable recorded information relevant to emergency duties. Later, during interaction with the Station House Officer and in court, he testified about the oral dying declaration.
Accordingly, the Division Bench refused to disbelieve his testimony solely because of the initial omission. The Court affirmed the conviction and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment.
Appearance
For the Appellant: Mr. Bharat Dubey, Ms. Shubhlaxmi Dubey, Ms. Sonia Dubey, Ms. Taniya Kapoor, and Ms. Ayesha Sharif, Advocates.
For the State: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP; Inspector Yogesh Singh, PS Mandir Marg.
Case Details
Case Title: Mohan @ Akkar v. State
