Inconsistent Dying Declarations: Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case: Abhishek Sharma vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) INSC 924 (18 October 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 October 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 924
Judges: Abhay S. Oka J., Sanjay Karol J. (authored the judgment)

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of multiple dying declarations if those declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was convicted based on multiple dying declarations of the deceased. The Court, upon careful scrutiny, found that the declarations were inconsistent and unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring the reliability of dying declarations before using them as the sole basis for conviction.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Mandeep Kaur, who worked as a team leader at M/s Sai Telecom in Delhi. She and the appellant, Abhishek Sharma, a customer care executive at the same company, were colleagues. On the night of September 20-21, 2007, Mandeep was found engulfed in flames near Queen Mary School, Model Town, Delhi. Despite being taken to two hospitals, she succumbed to her injuries on October 3, 2007. The prosecution alleged that Abhishek Sharma, who was known to drive Mandeep home after work, had set her on fire following a dispute related to her affections for their boss. Mandeep made several statements, which were treated as dying declarations, implicating Abhishek in the crime.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, after examining 25 witnesses, found Abhishek Sharma guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on four dying declarations made by the deceased. The High Court of Delhi upheld this conviction, agreeing with the Trial Court’s assessment of the dying declarations. The High Court also dismissed the argument that a person with 25% burn injuries could not have given detailed statements, citing the medical evidence of her mental fitness. The matter then reached the Supreme Court of India through a criminal appeal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder. It states, “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
• Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with statements made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, etc. It states, “Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:—(1) When it relates to cause of death— When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.”

These provisions are crucial in determining the culpability of the accused and the admissibility of the deceased’s statements as evidence. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, makes an exception to the rule of hearsay, allowing dying declarations to be admitted as evidence, provided they meet certain criteria of reliability and voluntariness.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court primarily focused on the admissibility and reliability of the four dying declarations made by the deceased. Here’s a breakdown:

Appellant’s Arguments (Abhishek Sharma)

• Inconsistency in Dying Declarations: The appellant argued that the four dying declarations were inconsistent and unreliable. The first declaration (DD-I) was recorded in the third person, the second (DD-II) lacked details, the third (DD-III) was made after the deceased received treatment, and the fourth (DD-IV) was made to the deceased’s mother, who was an interested witness.
• Hearsay and Lack of Corroboration: The appellant contended that DD-I was hearsay as it was reported by a police officer and not directly from the deceased. The other declarations lacked corroboration and were not made before a magistrate or doctor.
• Mental State of Deceased: The appellant questioned the mental state of the deceased when making the declarations, especially DD-III, as she had received treatment, and the effect of the medicines on her mental fitness was not determined.
• Lack of Evidence: The appellant argued that there was no other evidence linking him to the crime, such as ownership of a vehicle, motive, or connection to the inflammable substance used.
• Interested Witness: The appellant argued that the mother of the deceased was an interested witness and her testimony should not be relied upon without corroboration.

Respondent’s Arguments (State)

• Consistency in Declarations: The State argued that the dying declarations were consistent in identifying the appellant as the perpetrator.
• Voluntary Statements: The State contended that the declarations were made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind, as testified by the doctors.
• Last Seen Together: The State argued that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, which indicated his involvement in the crime.
• Medical Evidence: The State relied on the medical evidence showing that the deceased was fit to make statements.
• No Tutoring: The State argued that there was no evidence of tutoring or influence on the deceased when she made the statements.

The key arguments centered around the interpretation of the dying declarations, the circumstances under which they were made, and the extent to which they could be relied upon as evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the multiple dying declarations made by the deceased were consistent, reliable, and voluntary?
2. Whether the dying declarations could form the sole basis for conviction in the absence of other corroborative evidence?
3. Whether the mental state of the deceased at the time of making the declarations was established beyond reasonable doubt?
4. Whether the High Court and Trial Court erred in relying on the dying declarations to convict the appellant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several key authorities while adjudicating the matter. These authorities were used to establish the principles governing the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations.

Cases

• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 22]: This case laid down the principles that dying declarations can form the sole basis of conviction if they are free from infirmities and satisfy various tests. The Court reiterated that the statement should be consistent if the deceased had several opportunities to make such declarations. (Supreme Court of India)
• Kamla v. State of Punjab (1993) 1 SCC 1: This case emphasized that dying declarations should be consistent and voluntary to be reliable. It also stated that inconsistencies should be examined to determine if they are material or not. (Supreme Court of India)
• State of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 769: This case highlighted that the court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is truthful, and serious doubts arise if there are two dying declarations giving two different versions. (Supreme Court of India)
• Amol Singh v. State of M.P. (2008) 5 SCC 468: This case reiterated that inconsistencies between dying declarations must be examined to determine if they are material. (Supreme Court of India)
• Sher Singh Vs State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 265: This case stated that the endorsement of a doctor on a dying declaration is only a matter of prudence. (Supreme Court of India)
• Lakhan v. State of M.P. (2010) 8 SCC 514: This case stated that in case of multiple dying declarations with inconsistencies, the declaration recorded by a higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon if there is no suspicion about its truthfulness. (Supreme Court of India)
• Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 173: This case held that a dying declaration made by a person having 95-97% burn injuries was not accepted because the deceased was under the influence of injections and could not have had normal alertness. (Supreme Court of India)
• Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 224: This case observed that each dying declaration must be assessed independently on its own merit. (Supreme Court of India)
• Jagbir Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 8 SCC 779: This case outlined the principles for evaluating dying declarations, including considering the extent of inconsistencies and determining which declaration to rely on. (Supreme Court of India)
• Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1019: This case referred to the judgment in Lakhan v. State of M.P. regarding the reliance on dying declarations recorded by higher officers. (Supreme Court of India)
• Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576: This case emphasized that when there are contradictory dying declarations, the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence to determine which declaration can be corroborated by other material evidence. (Supreme Court of India)
• Chacko v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC 112: This case declined to accept a dying declaration made by a 70-year-old person with 80% burns, recorded 8-9 hours after the incident. (Supreme Court of India)
• P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 443: This case observed that the percentage of burns is not a sole determinant of the credibility of a dying declaration. (Supreme Court of India)
• Hari Obula Reddy and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (1981)3 SCC 675: This case held that evidence of interested witnesses is not necessarily unreliable and should be subjected to careful scrutiny. (Supreme Court of India)
• Pulicherla Nagaraju alias Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444: This case observed that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a relative if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions

• Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The court examined the exception to the rule of hearsay provided by this section, which allows statements made by a deceased person to be considered relevant evidence.

Judgment

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed each of the four dying declarations, applying the principles laid down in previous judgments. The Court found the following:

• DD-I: The first dying declaration, recorded by a police officer, was deemed inadmissible as it was recorded in the third person and was thus hearsay. The court noted, “the same would not be applicable in the present case…statements far removed from the original maker of the statement cannot be exempted more so when reliance on the same results in a penal consequence.”
• DD-II: The second dying declaration, a medico-legal entry, was found to be insufficient as it lacked details and had a suspicious gap. The court observed, “it must contain the proximate cause of the deceased’s condition and the reason therefor. Here, it states the presence of burn injuries and says that the same was caused by Abhishek, which, arguably, is insufficient.”
• DD-III: The third dying declaration, made to a police officer, was questioned due to the lack of medical opinion regarding the impact of treatment on the deceased’s mental fitness. The court stated, “In the absence of a positive statement by the medical team responsible for her treatment, it cannot be stated, with certainty, that the medicines administered had no effect of impairing the mental fitness of the deceased.”
• DD-IV: The fourth dying declaration, made to the deceased’s mother, was deemed unreliable due to the mother being an interested witness and the lack of independent corroboration. The court noted, “Considering the nature of the statement made by the deceased to the mother, independent corroboration is difficult…the court cannot rule out, to a positive degree, the role played by a sense of loss and possibly even anger, to rely on such statement.”

The Court also highlighted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and noted the absence of crucial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies and unreliability of the dying declarations, coupled with a lack of corroborative evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that such declarations are voluntary, truthful, and made in a fit state of mind. The absence of a clear medical opinion on the deceased’s mental state after treatment, and the fact that the first dying declaration was hearsay, further weighed against the prosecution’s case. The Court also considered the lack of any other evidence linking the appellant to the crime, such as motive, ownership of the vehicle, or connection to the inflammable substance.

Decision

The Supreme Court, after careful consideration of the evidence and the arguments presented, overturned the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court. The Court acquitted Abhishek Sharma, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court directed that the appellant be released from custody immediately if not required in any other case.

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores the importance of the following principles:

• Reliability of Dying Declarations: Dying declarations must be consistent, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind to be considered reliable.
• Corroboration: Dying declarations, particularly when inconsistent, should be corroborated by other evidence to form the basis for a conviction.
• Mental Fitness: The mental state of the deceased at the time of making the declaration must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, especially if treatment has been administered.
• Interested Witnesses: Statements made to interested witnesses should be treated with caution and require corroboration.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal.

This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise caution when relying solely on dying declarations, particularly when they are inconsistent and lack corroboration. It also highlights the importance of a thorough investigation and the need for the prosecution to present a strong case with credible evidence.

Flowchart of Supreme Court’s Decision-Making Process

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of this case can be summarized as follows: In criminal trials, particularly in cases of murder, dying declarations must be consistent, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind to be considered reliable. When multiple dying declarations are inconsistent and lack corroboration, they cannot form the sole basis for conviction. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any inconsistencies or doubts in the evidence can lead to acquittal. The court also emphasized that statements made to interested witnesses should be treated with caution and require corroboration.