Supreme Court overturns conviction based on unreliable dying declaration: Poonam Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh (30 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 30 April 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 392

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

Can a conviction be solely based on a dying declaration when its authenticity is questionable? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent criminal appeal. The case revolved around the conviction of an appellant for murder, primarily based on a dying declaration recorded by an executive magistrate and an oral dying declaration. The Supreme Court, after careful consideration of the evidence, overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for dying declarations to be trustworthy and reliable.

The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and S. Abdul Nazeer. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case involves the death of Vimla Bai, who was the wife of Pilaram Sahu. The appellant, Poonam Bai, is the niece of the deceased. On November 1, 2001, around noon, Poonam Bai visited Vimla Bai’s house when she was alone. An altercation ensued, during which Poonam Bai allegedly poured kerosene on Vimla Bai and set her on fire using a matchstick. Vimla Bai suffered severe burn injuries and later died in the hospital. The incident was reported to the Gurur Police Station on the same day by Lalita Sahu, the deceased’s daughter, at approximately 12:05 p.m.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted Poonam Bai after evaluating the evidence. The State of Chhattisgarh appealed this decision to the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The High Court reversed the trial court’s judgment and convicted Poonam Bai under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the punishment for murder. The court also considered the evidentiary value of dying declarations.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code states:
“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• There were no eyewitnesses to the incident.
• The case rests solely on two dying declarations, whose reliability is questionable.
• The motive for the offense was not established.
• The High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal, especially since the trial court’s judgment was not perverse.
• The dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution were not credible.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The High Court’s judgment convicting the appellant was correct and should be upheld.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal and convicting the appellant based on the dying declarations.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal principles regarding dying declarations:

• A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless, and reliable.
• While a doctor’s certification is not mandatory, it is a rule of prudence to ensure the declarant’s fitness to make a statement.
• The dying declaration must inspire the full confidence of the court, especially since the declarant cannot be cross-examined.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The principles regarding dying declarations were applied to assess the reliability of the dying declarations in the case. The court emphasized that a dying declaration must be trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless, and reliable to be the sole basis for conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of reliability and trustworthiness of the dying declarations. The court noted several discrepancies and procedural lapses in the recording of the dying declaration by the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate. The absence of a doctor’s certification, the lack of verification of the victim’s fitness to make a statement, and the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses all contributed to the court’s skepticism. The court also highlighted the fact that the original dying declaration was not produced before the trial court, further undermining its credibility. The oral dying declaration was also deemed unreliable due to the witnesses not mentioning it in their initial statements to the police. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, holding that the dying declarations were not reliable enough to form the sole basis for conviction. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that dying declarations are trustworthy and voluntary. The trial court’s decision to acquit the appellant was restored. The Court directed the immediate release of the appellant from custody, if not required in any other case.

The Court noted: “There cannot be any dispute that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for convicting the accused. However, such a dying declaration should be trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable.”

The Court also observed: “In the matter on hand, since Exh. P2, the dying declaration is the only circumstance relied upon by the prosecution, in order to satisfy our conscience, we have considered the material on record keeping in mind the well-established principles regarding the acceptability of dying declarations.”

Further, the Court stated: “Since the evidence relating to the dying declarations has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant, inasmuch as there is no other material against the appellant to implicate her.”

There was no minority opinion in this case; all three judges concurred with the decision.

Key Takeaways

• Dying declarations must be meticulously recorded and verified to ensure their reliability.
• A conviction cannot solely rest on a dying declaration if it is not trustworthy, voluntary, and free from suspicion.
• The absence of a doctor’s certification, though not mandatory, raises questions about the declarant’s fitness to make a statement.
• Oral dying declarations are weak evidence if not corroborated by initial statements to the police.
• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence like dying declarations.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration, to be the sole basis for conviction, must be trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless, and reliable. The court reiterated the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards while recording dying declarations, emphasizing that the absence of such safeguards can render the declaration unreliable. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence such as dying declarations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Poonam Bai vs. The State of Chhattisgarh underscores the critical importance of ensuring the reliability of dying declarations before using them as the sole basis for conviction. The Court’s decision to overturn the High Court’s conviction and restore the trial court’s acquittal highlights the need for meticulous adherence to procedural safeguards and a thorough assessment of the credibility of evidence in criminal cases. This case serves as a reminder that justice must be based on solid evidence and not on mere suspicion or unreliable statements.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Dying Declaration

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is a dying declaration?

A: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, concerning the cause or circumstances of their impending death. It is admissible as evidence in court.

Q: Can a person be convicted solely based on a dying declaration?

A: Yes, a person can be convicted solely based on a dying declaration, but only if the declaration is trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless, and reliable.

Q: Is a doctor’s certification mandatory for a dying declaration to be valid?

A: No, a doctor’s certification is not mandatory, but it is a rule of prudence. The absence of a doctor’s certification may raise questions about the declarant’s fitness to make a statement.

Q: What are the key factors that make a dying declaration reliable?

A: Key factors include the declarant’s fitness to make a statement, the absence of any suspicious circumstances, and consistency with other evidence. The declaration should be voluntary and free from any influence.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction and restored the trial court’s acquittal, holding that the dying declarations were not reliable enough to form the sole basis for conviction.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?

A: This judgment emphasizes the need for meticulous recording and verification of dying declarations. It serves as a reminder that convictions must be based on solid evidence and not on mere suspicion or unreliable statements.