Supreme Court acquits accused in murder case due to doubts on dying declarations: Hari Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: September 5, 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 937
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose. This was a unanimous decision by a two-judge bench, with the opinion authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld based on dying declarations when there are doubts about their veracity and the identity of the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the prosecution’s evidence was primarily based on two dying declarations. The Court ultimately acquitted the accused due to significant doubts about the reliability of these declarations and the identification of the perpetrators.

Case Background

On October 17, 1997, Shyam, an employee of the Malaria Department, was allegedly attacked near his shanty behind Ashok Talkies in Ujjain. According to the First Information Report (FIR), Shyam was surrounded and beaten by three individuals: Rupa, Hari ‘the Tempowala’, and the son of Nathu. These individuals accused Shyam of not returning money he allegedly owed them. During the altercation, Hari ‘the Tempowala’ and the son of Nathu allegedly stabbed Shyam multiple times with knives. Ramchander Dholi (PW.12) arrived at the scene during the attack and was also injured. Shyam was taken to the hospital, where his condition deteriorated, and he died in the early hours of October 18, 1997.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the accused based primarily on two dying declarations: the FIR lodged by Shyam and a statement recorded by the Investigating Officer (PW-14) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court upheld this conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declarations, as well as the principles of criminal jurisprudence relating to the burden of proof and the identification of the accused. The relevant legal provisions include:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police. The statement recorded under this section is not admissible as evidence in the court of law.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the two dying declarations, namely the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly implicated the accused in the murder of Shyam. They contended that the FIR, lodged by the deceased himself, and the subsequent statement to the investigating officer, were reliable and consistent accounts of the incident. The prosecution also argued that the accused failed to prove that there were no other persons of the same name in the locality.

The defense argued that the dying declarations were unreliable. They pointed out discrepancies in the timing of the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The defense also highlighted that the deceased’s condition was deteriorating rapidly, casting doubt on his ability to give a coherent statement. They also argued that the prosecution failed to properly identify the accused and that the burden of proof always remains on the prosecution.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the dying declarations, specifically the FIR and the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were reliable and admissible as evidence.
2. Whether the prosecution had successfully identified the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• The Court considered the circumstances under which dying declarations are recorded, emphasizing the need for the declarant to be in a fit state of mind.
• The Court also reiterated the principle that the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, and acquitted the accused. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was primarily based on two dying declarations, which were not reliable. The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court emphasized that the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.* is not admissible as evidence in the court of law.
• The Court reiterated the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Doubts about the Dying Declarations: The Court found significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in the two dying declarations. The delay in lodging the FIR, the deceased’s critical condition, and the lack of a doctor’s opinion before recording the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. raised serious questions about their reliability.
• Failure to Identify Accused: The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to identify the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The vague descriptions of the accused in the FIR and the subsequent statement were not enough to establish their identity.
• Burden of Proof: The Court reiterated that the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which the prosecution failed to do in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the factual inconsistencies and doubts surrounding the dying declarations, with a significant emphasis on the legal principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This is reflected in the ratio of 60% fact and 40% law.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the prosecution’s argument that the dying declarations were reliable, but ultimately rejected this view due to significant doubts about the circumstances under which these declarations were made. The Court also considered the argument that the accused had to prove that there were no other persons of the same name in the locality, but rejected this argument as it is contrary to the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court observed: “The manner in which the statement has been recorded casts a grave doubt with regard to the admissibility and evidentiary value of the statement.”

The Supreme Court also noted: “It is for the prosecution to prove who is Rupa; who is Hari ‘the Tempowala’ and who is son of Nathu.”

The Court further stated: “In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that there is a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the persons and the accused have not been linked clearly with the offence and the benefit of doubt has to be given to them.”

Key Takeaways

• Dying declarations must be recorded with utmost care and diligence, ensuring that the declarant is in a fit state of mind and that all procedural safeguards are followed.
• The prosecution must establish the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Vague descriptions and lack of proper identification can lead to acquittal.
• The burden of proof always lies on the prosecution in criminal cases. The accused cannot be asked to prove their innocence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused be acquitted and their bail bonds be discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of dying declarations if there are serious doubts about their reliability and the identity of the accused is not established beyond a reasonable doubt. This case reinforces the principle that the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution in criminal cases. There was no change in the previous position of law, but this judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal principles and ensuring that the prosecution’s case is robust and credible.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hari Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh highlights the importance of reliability and veracity in evidence, especially in cases relying on dying declarations. The Court’s emphasis on the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt serves as a crucial reminder of fundamental principles in criminal jurisprudence. The case underscores that mere allegations are not sufficient for conviction, and the prosecution must provide concrete evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court acquitted the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt.