Supreme Court overturns conviction based on inconsistent dying declarations: Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (29 May 2013)

Date of the Judgment: 29 May 2013
Citation: Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, Criminal Appeal No.248 of 2007
Judges: Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. and Dipak Misra, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the primary evidence, the dying declarations of the deceased, are inconsistent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man was convicted based on a dying declaration that contradicted earlier statements made by the deceased. This case highlights the importance of consistency and reliability in dying declarations. The bench consisted of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Justice Dipak Misra, with the judgment authored by Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Ratna Kumari, who had married the appellant, Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi, in an inter-caste marriage registered on 26 October 1991. Their marriage was not harmonious, leading to a divorce. Initially, a divorce petition was rejected because one year had not elapsed since the marriage. Subsequently, a second petition was filed, and the divorce was granted. Despite the divorce, the appellant allegedly maintained contact with the deceased.

On 15 April 2000, Ratna Kumari was admitted to the Government Headquarter Hospital, Vijianagaram, with 44% burns. She initially stated that a kerosene stove fell on her, causing the injuries. This statement was recorded by a head constable and later by an Executive Magistrate as a dying declaration. However, on 28 April 2000, she gave another dying declaration, alleging that the appellant had poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Ratna Kumari died on 3 June 2000 due to septicemia shock from the burns. The police then altered the FIR to include charges under Section 302 (murder) and Section 498A (cruelty to a woman) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted all the accused, including the appellant and his parents, citing a lack of evidence. The State appealed to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which dismissed the appeal against the parents but convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder. The court also considered the evidentiary value of dying declarations. According to the Indian Evidence Act, a dying declaration is a statement made by a person as to the cause of their death or the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in their death. Such statements are admissible as evidence. The court emphasized that such statements must be consistent and reliable to be used as a basis for conviction.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the deceased’s initial statements, recorded as a complaint and a dying declaration on 15 April 2000, clearly indicated that the incident was an accident.
• He contended that the deceased was tutored by her mother to implicate him and his parents in her third dying declaration on 28 April 2000.
• The appellant submitted that the third dying declaration was self-contradictory and unreliable.
• He also argued that since the parties were divorced, there was no question of dowry demand or harassment.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence, particularly the dying declarations of the deceased, which clearly implicated the appellant and his parents.
• The State contended that the High Court had taken a lenient view by not admitting the appeal against the appellant’s parents.
• The State maintained that the High Court had followed all the parameters set by the Supreme Court for interfering with an order of acquittal.

The innovativeness of the argument was that the appellant questioned the reliability of the third dying declaration based on the inconsistencies with the first two declarations and also the fact that the parties were divorced and therefore, the question of dowry demand or harassment could not arise.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, considering the inconsistencies in the dying declarations of the deceased?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several precedents to emphasize the importance of consistency and reliability in dying declarations:

• Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 148: The Supreme Court held that if there are apparent discrepancies in two dying declarations, it is unsafe to convict the accused.
• Heeralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 671: This case reiterated that in case of inconsistencies, the accused gets the benefit of doubt.
• Smt. Kamla v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 374: The court emphasized that the dying declaration should inspire full confidence of the court about its correctness.
• Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1999 SC 3062: The court held that it is not the plurality of dying declarations but the reliability that adds weight to the prosecution case.
• Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 1720: The court reiterated that the court has to be satisfied that the maker was in a fit state of mind and had a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant(s).
• Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 468: The court emphasized that the statements should be consistent throughout.
• State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Khaja Hussain, (2009) 15 SCC 120: The court reiterated that the court has to examine the nature of inconsistencies, whether they are material or not.
• Sharda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 408: The court held that the dying declaration should be voluntary, reliable and made in a fit mental condition.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Court emphasized that the inconsistencies between the first two dying declarations and the third one made the latter unreliable. The court also noted that the third dying declaration was full of contradictions and did not inspire confidence. The court held that in cases of multiple dying declarations, the court must scrutinize the evidence cautiously and find consistency in material particulars. The court also highlighted that the accused does not have the right to cross-examine the maker of the dying declaration, thus making it necessary that the dying declaration should inspire full confidence of the court about its correctness, as it may be the result of tutoring, prompting or product of imagination.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to emphasize the principle that in cases of multiple dying declarations, the court must scrutinize the evidence cautiously and find consistency in material particulars. Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 148* and Heeralal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 671* were cited to support the principle that discrepancies in dying declarations warrant an acquittal. The court also cited Smt. Kamla v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 SC 374*, Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1999 SC 3062*, Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 1720*, Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 5 SCC 468*, State of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Khaja Hussain, (2009) 15 SCC 120*, and Sharda v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 408* to highlight the importance of the reliability of a dying declaration and the need for it to be consistent, voluntary, and made in a fit mental state.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies in the dying declarations of the deceased. The court found that the first two dying declarations, made on 15 April 2000, clearly stated that the incident was an accident. However, the third dying declaration, made on 28 April 2000, contradicted these earlier statements, alleging that the appellant had intentionally set her on fire. This contradiction raised serious doubts about the reliability of the third declaration.

The court’s focus was more on the factual inconsistencies in the dying declarations (60%) rather than purely legal considerations (40%).

Logical Reasoning

The court also considered the fact that the parties were divorced, making the allegations of dowry demand and harassment irrelevant. The court observed that the third dying declaration was full of contradictions and did not inspire confidence. The court also noted that the mother of the deceased had deposed about the illicit relationship of the appellant and another woman and the appellant wanted to marry that woman. The court found that since the parties had separated by a divorce through court, it was not clear how the deceased or her parents were concerned about such a relationship.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the accused does not have the right to cross-examine the maker of the dying declaration. Therefore, it is essential that the dying declaration should inspire full confidence of the court about its correctness, as it may be the result of tutoring, prompting, or a product of imagination. The court reiterated that in cases of multiple dying declarations, the court must scrutinize the evidence cautiously and find consistency in material particulars.

The court quoted from the judgment:

• “It is a settled legal proposition that in case there are apparent discrepancies in two dying declarations, it would be unsafe to convict the accused. In such a fact-situation, the accused gets the benefit of doubt.”
• “In case of plural/multiple dying declarations, the court has to scrutinise the evidence cautiously and must find out whether there is consistency particularly in material particulars therein.”
• “In case of inconsistencies, the court has to examine the nature of the same, i.e. whether they are material or not and while scrutinising the contents of various dying declarations, the court has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances.”

The court did not find any alternative interpretations, as the inconsistencies in the dying declarations were clear and material. The court concluded that the High Court had not considered the matter in the correct perspective nor observed the parameters laid down by the court to interfere against the order of acquittal.

Key Takeaways

• Inconsistent dying declarations cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
• Dying declarations must be consistent and reliable to be admissible as evidence.
• The court must scrutinize the evidence cautiously in cases of multiple dying declarations.
• The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if there are material inconsistencies in the dying declarations.
• The court must be satisfied that the maker of the dying declaration was in a fit state of mind, had a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant, and that the statement was not the result of tutoring or prompting.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Trial Court’s judgment, acquitting the appellant. The appellant’s bail bonds were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving multiple dying declarations, the court must carefully scrutinize the statements for consistency and reliability. If there are material inconsistencies, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. This judgment reinforces the importance of the principle of consistency in dying declarations and provides a clear guideline for lower courts to follow when dealing with such cases. It underscores that the reliability of the dying declaration is more important than the number of declarations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bhadragiri Venkata Ravi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh highlights the critical importance of consistency and reliability in dying declarations. The court overturned the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing that contradictory statements cannot form the sole basis for a conviction. This case serves as a reminder of the need for courts to carefully scrutinize evidence, especially in cases where the primary evidence is a dying declaration, and to ensure that the accused is not convicted based on unreliable or inconsistent statements.