Dying Declaration Reliability: Supreme Court overturns conviction in State of Rajasthan vs. Shravan Ram (2013)

LEGAL ISSUE: The reliability and evidentiary value of multiple dying declarations.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: State of Rajasthan vs. Shravan Ram & Anr.
Judgment Date: May 1, 2013

Date of the Judgment: May 1, 2013
Citation: (2013) INSC 317
Judges: K.S. Radhakrishnan, J., Dipak Misra, J.

Can a conviction be based solely on a dying declaration? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case involving a woman who died from severe burn injuries. The court examined the evidentiary value of multiple dying declarations and the circumstances under which they can be relied upon to establish guilt. The judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, ultimately overturned the conviction, emphasizing the need for consistency and reliability in dying declarations.

Case Background

Guddi, a 19-year-old woman, was admitted to the hospital on September 11, 1998, with 99% burn injuries. A statement, known as “Parcha Bayan,” was recorded by ASI Ram Kishan and signed by SHO Mohan Lal at the hospital. Based on this statement, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against her father-in-law, Shravan Ram, and her husband, Pappu Lal, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Guddi died later that day, and the case was converted to one under Section 302 of the IPC, for murder. The accused were arrested on September 12, 1998.

The prosecution presented 14 witnesses. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused, relying heavily on a dying declaration allegedly made by Guddi to a neighbor, Prem Chand (PW3), which was recorded in his statement to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court of Rajasthan, however, reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused based on the dying declaration made to PW3, Prem Chand, and other circumstantial evidence. The High Court of Rajasthan overturned this conviction, stating that the dying declaration was uncorroborated and therefore unreliable. The State of Rajasthan then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Specifically, the court considered:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for murder.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with attempt to murder.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Pertains to the examination of witnesses by the police during investigation.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: States that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
• Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Allows the court to presume the existence of certain facts.
• Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965: Lays down the procedure for recording dying declarations.
  The rule states:
  • (1) A dying declaration shall, whenever possible, be recorded by a Magistrate.
  • (2) The person making the declaration shall, if possible, be examined by medical officer with a view to ascertaining that he is sufficiently in possession of his reason to make a lucid statement.
  • (3) If no Magistrate can be obtained, the declaration shall, when a gazetted police officer is not present, be recorded in the presence of two or more reliable witnesses unconnected with the police department and with the parties concerned in the case.
  • (4) If no such witnesses can be obtained without risk of the injured person dying before his statement can be recorded, it shall be recorded in the presence of two or more police officers.
  • (5) A dying declaration made to a police officer should, under Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, be signed by the person making it.”

The court also considered several precedents related to the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

• Appellant (State of Rajasthan):
  • The High Court erred in not relying on the evidence of PW3, Prem Chand, and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., where the deceased named the father-in-law.
  • The deceased was in the custody of the respondents, so the burden of explaining the cause of the burn injuries was on them.
  • The accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
  • The High Court did not properly appreciate the evidence of PW1, PW2, and PW14, who testified about the harassment of the deceased.
• Respondents (Shravan Ram & Anr.):
  • The High Court rightly held that it was not safe to base a conviction on the statement of PW3, who was declared hostile.
  • PW3’s statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not name the second accused, Pappu Lal.
  • Neighbours PW4 and PW5 did not disclose the cause of death or name any accused.
  • The dying declaration made before Prem Chand remained uncorroborated and therefore unreliable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the statement of PW3, Prem Chand, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., could be accepted as a dying declaration.
2. Whether the dying declaration recorded by ASI Ramkishan and signed by SHO Mohan Lal (PW13) and Dr. Anil Kumar Soni was sufficient to base a conviction.
3. Whether the provisions of Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 were complied with.
4. Whether the multiple dying declarations in the case were consistent and reliable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the two dying declarations: the “Parcha Bayan” (Ex.P14A) and the statement made by PW3, Prem Chand (Ex.P6). The court noted that the Parcha Bayan did not name the accused. Additionally, the statement made by PW3 was not corroborated by other witnesses and PW3 himself turned hostile.

The court emphasized that while a dying declaration is admissible, it must be reliable and consistent. The court referred to several precedents, including Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar (2001) 6 SCC 407* which stated that dying declarations should be dealt with care and caution. The court also cited Bhajju Alias Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327* which held that a dying declaration, if reliable, can form the basis of a conviction, but it must be judged in light of surrounding circumstances. The court also noted that Smt. Kamla v. State of Punjab (1993) 1 SCC 1* stated that multiple dying declarations should be consistent.

The court found material contradictions and discrepancies between the two dying declarations and also inter se discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses. The court concluded that the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies and contradictions in the dying declarations. The court emphasized the need for a dying declaration to be reliable and consistent, especially when it is the primary evidence for conviction. The lack of corroboration for the statement made to PW3, and the fact that the deceased did not name the accused in the Parcha Bayan, were critical factors. The court also considered the fact that PW3 turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

The Court observed, “We have gone through both the dying declarations and there are not only material contradictions in both the declarations but also inter se discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses as well.”

The Court further stated, “In the first dying declaration recorded by ASI, signed by PW13, there is no mention of the names of any of the accused persons and the deceased had stated that she could not recognize the person who set her ablaze even though the declaration was in consonance with Rule 6.22 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965.”

The Court also noted, “So far as the statement of PW3 – Prem Chand recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. marked as Exh. P6 is concerned, the deceased was only abusing her father in law and that was not even corroborated by PW4 or PW5 and PW3 himself turned hostile.”

The court highlighted that the dying declaration must be free from any tutoring or prompting and should inspire full confidence in its correctness.

The bench unanimously agreed that the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused was correct, as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaways

• Dying declarations must be consistent and reliable to form the basis of a conviction.
• Corroboration of a dying declaration is not always essential, but it is expedient to strengthen its evidentiary value.
• If there are multiple dying declarations, they should be consistent, especially in material particulars.
• Statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as dying declarations without corroboration.
• The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt always lies on the prosecution.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that multiple dying declarations must be consistent and reliable to form the basis of a conviction. This case reinforces the principle that a dying declaration, while admissible, must be scrutinized carefully for inconsistencies and contradictions. The court reiterated that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather clarifies the application of existing principles regarding dying declarations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The judgment emphasizes the importance of consistency and reliability in dying declarations and highlights that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the inconsistencies and contradictions in the dying declarations, coupled with the lack of corroboration, made it unsafe to base a conviction on them.