Date of the Judgment: June 2, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 504
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Hima Kohli, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the dying declarations of the deceased are inconsistent and unreliable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the death of a woman due to burn injuries. The court overturned the conviction of the husband, highlighting the importance of consistency and reliability in dying declarations. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Hima Kohli, with Justice Hima Kohli authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around the death of Pushpabai, who married the appellant, Uttam, on March 19, 1994. The couple had no children. Uttam, a TV mechanic, was alleged to be having an affair with a widow named Kusum Gaikwad. On March 26, 1995, Uttam and Kusum went to watch a movie, which led to a confrontation with Pushpabai upon his return. The next day, March 27, 1995, another quarrel ensued where Uttam allegedly told Pushpabai that he would not leave Kusum. When Pushpabai demanded a divorce, Uttam assaulted her, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire. Pushpabai’s brother rushed to extinguish the fire, but she sustained severe burns and was taken to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur, where she died on March 31, 1995.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 19, 1994 | Uttam and Pushpabai get married. |
| March 26, 1995 | Uttam goes to a movie with Kusum Gaikwad, leading to a quarrel with Pushpabai. |
| March 27, 1995 | Uttam quarrels with Pushpabai, assaults her, pours kerosene on her, and sets her on fire. Pushpabai is admitted to Mayo Hospital, Nagpur. |
| March 31, 1995 | Pushpabai succumbs to her burn injuries at Mayo Hospital. |
| April 29, 1997 | The 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, convicts Uttam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| July 26, 2010 | The High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench dismisses Uttam’s appeal. |
| June 02, 2022 | The Supreme Court of India allows Uttam’s appeal and acquits him. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted Uttam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on two dying declarations of Pushpabai and the testimonies of her father and a mediator. Uttam appealed to the High Court, which, while discarding the written dying declarations due to inconsistencies, upheld the trial court’s decision, relying on oral dying declarations and a chemical analysis report. The Supreme Court heard Uttam’s appeal against the High Court’s judgment.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provisions at play in this case are:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with 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 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section makes statements by a person who is dead, regarding the cause of their death, admissible in evidence. It states, “Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead…are themselves relevant facts in the following cases…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.” This is an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence.
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that ‘hearsay evidence is inadmissible’ and only when such an evidence is direct and is validated through cross-examination, is it considered to be trustworthy.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the High Court erred in relying on oral dying declarations after discarding the written ones.
- The appellant contended that there were significant contradictions between the written dying declarations and the oral statements made to PW-2 and PW-12.
- The appellant argued that the oral statements were unreliable as they were not recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and were made for the first time in court.
- The appellant cited Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh [(2007) 15 SCC 465], arguing that inconsistent dying declarations should be discarded.
- The appellant also cited Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar [(2001) 6 SCC 407], Arun Bhandudas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 232], and Poonam Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 6 SCC 145] to question the reliability of oral dying declarations made to family members without a doctor present.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The respondent argued that both written dying declarations were consistent and stated that the appellant had set Pushpabai on fire.
- They emphasized the fitness certificates issued by the doctor before the statements were recorded.
- The respondent contended that the oral dying declarations were consistent with the victim’s version.
- The respondent pointed to the Chemical Analyser Report that detected kerosene on the clothes of the deceased and the appellant.
- The respondent cited State of Uttar Pradesh v. Veerpal and Another [(2022) 4 SCC 741], Rizan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2003) 2 SCC 661], and Bhagwan Tukaram Dange v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 4 SCC 270] to support the argument that the court can accept one dying declaration over another if the basic statement remains consistent.
- The respondent cited Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] to argue that the onus is on the accused to explain how the death occurred within the privacy of their home.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Dying Declarations |
|
|
| Burden of Proof |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument innovatively challenged the High Court’s reliance on oral dying declarations after rejecting the written ones, highlighting the inherent inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction based on oral dying declarations after discarding the written dying declarations.
- Whether the oral dying declarations made to PW-2 and PW-12 were reliable and consistent with the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction based on oral dying declarations after discarding the written dying declarations. | The Court held that the High Court was not justified in relying on the oral dying declarations after discarding the written ones. | The Court found that the High Court had rightly discarded the written dying declarations due to procedural lapses and inconsistencies. The Court held that the oral dying declarations were equally unreliable, as they were inconsistent with each other and with the written declarations, and were made to interested witnesses. |
| Whether the oral dying declarations made to PW-2 and PW-12 were reliable and consistent with the prosecution’s case. | The Court found the oral dying declarations unreliable and inconsistent. | The Court noted that PW-2 and PW-12 gave varying accounts of the incident, focusing on dowry demands and ill-treatment, while the written declarations and prosecution case focused on an illicit relationship. The Court also noted that these witnesses had not made these statements to the police during the investigation. |
| Whether the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. | The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. | Given the unreliability of the dying declarations and the lack of corroborative evidence, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
On the Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Dying Declarations:
- Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1993) 2 SCC 684] – Supreme Court of India: Highlighted the significance of a dying declaration as an exception to hearsay evidence, provided it is made in a fit mental condition.
- Shudhakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2012) 7 SCC 569] – Supreme Court of India: Opined that a reliable dying declaration can form the basis of conviction, especially when corroborated by other evidence.
- Paniben (Smt.) v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 2 SCC 474] – Supreme Court of India: Summarized the principles governing dying declarations, including that a conviction can be based on a true and voluntary declaration without corroboration.
- Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 8 SCC 514] – Supreme Court of India: Discussed the probative value of dying declarations and the need for careful scrutiny, especially when multiple declarations exist.
- Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 5 SCC 468] – Supreme Court of India: Stated that the reliability of a dying declaration is more important than the number of declarations, and inconsistencies must be examined.
- Sher Singh and Another v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 265] – Supreme Court of India: Held that a dying declaration should inspire full confidence and not be the result of tutoring or prompting.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Veerpal and Another [(2022) 4 SCC 741] – Supreme Court of India: Clarified that a dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration if it is true and voluntary.
- Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 22] – Supreme Court of India: Discussed the conditions under which a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction.
On the Treatment of Multiple Dying Declarations:
- Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh [(2007) 15 SCC 465] – Supreme Court of India: Held that a dying declaration must inspire confidence and that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Veerpal and Another [(2022) 4 SCC 741] – Supreme Court of India: Held that the court can accept one dying declaration over another if the basic statement remains consistent.
- Rizan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2003) 2 SCC 661] – Supreme Court of India: Held that the court can accept one dying declaration over another if the basic statement remains consistent.
- Bhagwan Tukaram Dange v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 4 SCC 270] – Supreme Court of India: Held that the court can accept one dying declaration over another if the basic statement remains consistent.
On the Reliability of Oral Dying Declarations:
- Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar [(2001) 6 SCC 407] – Supreme Court of India: Stated that dying declarations should be treated with care and caution.
- Arun Bhandudas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 232] – Supreme Court of India: Declined to accept the testimony of an interested witness in the absence of corroboration from an independent witness.
- Poonam Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 6 SCC 145] – Supreme Court of India: Held that oral dying declarations are weak evidence, especially if made for the first time before the court.
On the Burden of Proof:
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] – Supreme Court of India: Stated that the onus is on the accused to explain how the death occurred within the privacy of their home.
Authorities Considered Table
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1993) 2 SCC 684] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Highlighted the significance of a dying declaration. |
| Shudhakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2012) 7 SCC 569] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Opined that a reliable dying declaration can form the basis of conviction. |
| Paniben (Smt.) v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 2 SCC 474] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Summarized the principles governing dying declarations. |
| Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 8 SCC 514] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Discussed the probative value of dying declarations. |
| Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 5 SCC 468] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Stated that the reliability of a dying declaration is more important than the number of declarations. |
| Sher Singh and Another v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 265] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Held that a dying declaration should inspire full confidence. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh v. Veerpal and Another [(2022) 4 SCC 741] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Clarified that a dying declaration can be acted upon without corroboration. |
| Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 22] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Discussed the conditions under which a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction. |
| Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh [(2007) 15 SCC 465] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Held that a dying declaration must inspire confidence. |
| Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar [(2001) 6 SCC 407] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Stated that dying declarations should be treated with care and caution. |
| Arun Bhandudas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 232] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Declined to accept the testimony of an interested witness without corroboration. |
| Poonam Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 6 SCC 145] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Held that oral dying declarations are weak evidence. |
| Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Stated that the onus is on the accused to explain how the death occurred within the privacy of their home. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh v. Veerpal and Another [(2022) 4 SCC 741] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Held that the court can accept one dying declaration over another if the basic statement remains consistent. |
| Rizan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2003) 2 SCC 661] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Held that the court can accept one dying declaration over another if the basic statement remains consistent. |
| Bhagwan Tukaram Dange v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 4 SCC 270] | Supreme Court of India | Followed – Held that the court can accept one dying declaration over another if the basic statement remains consistent. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the High Court had rightly discarded the written dying declarations due to procedural lapses and inconsistencies. The Court further held that the oral dying declarations were equally unreliable, as they were inconsistent with each other and with the written declarations, and were made to interested witnesses. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to provide trustworthy corroborative evidence.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the High Court erred in relying on oral dying declarations after discarding the written ones. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the High Court should not have relied on oral dying declarations after discarding the written ones due to inconsistencies and procedural lapses. |
| Appellant’s submission that there were significant contradictions between the written dying declarations and the oral statements made to PW-2 and PW-12. | Accepted. The Court noted the inconsistencies between the different versions of the events and the lack of corroboration. |
| Appellant’s submission that the oral statements were unreliable as they were not recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and were made for the first time in court. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the oral statements were unreliable as they were made for the first time in court. |
| Respondent’s argument that both written dying declarations were consistent and stated that the appellant had set Pushpabai on fire. | Rejected. The Court agreed with the High Court that the written dying declarations were unreliable due to procedural lapses. |
| Respondent’s argument that the oral dying declarations were consistent with the victim’s version. | Rejected. The Court found that the oral dying declarations were inconsistent with each other and with the written declarations, and were made to interested witnesses. |
| Respondent’s argument that the onus is on the accused to explain how the death occurred within the privacy of their home. | Not directly addressed in the context of the dying declarations. The Court focused on the unreliability of the dying declarations and the lack of corroborative evidence. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1993) 2 SCC 684], Shudhakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2012) 7 SCC 569], and Paniben (Smt.) v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 2 SCC 474] to emphasize the importance of a dying declaration being true, voluntary, and made in a fit mental state.
- The Court used Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 8 SCC 514] and Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 5 SCC 468] to highlight the need for careful scrutiny of multiple dying declarations and to emphasize that reliability is more important than the number of declarations.
- The Court cited Sher Singh and Another v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 265] to stress that a dying declaration should inspire full confidence and not be the result of tutoring or prompting.
- The Court referred to Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh [(2007) 15 SCC 465] to highlight that a dying declaration must inspire confidence and that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
- The Court applied Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar [(2001) 6 SCC 407], Arun Bhandudas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 232], and Poonam Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 6 SCC 145] to emphasize the need for caution when dealing with oral dying declarations, especially those made to interested witnesses.
- The Court distinguished the facts from Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681], noting that the focus was on the unreliability of the dying declarations rather than the accused’s explanation.
- The Court relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Veerpal and Another [(2022) 4 SCC 741], Rizan and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2003) 2 SCC 661] and Bhagwan Tukaram Dange v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 4 SCC 270] to emphasize that the court can accept one dying declaration over another if the basic statement remains consistent, but in this case, the court found that there were no consistent statements.
- The Court used Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [AIR 1958 SC 22] to discuss the conditions under which a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, but found that the conditions were not met in this case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Inconsistency in Dying Declarations: The Court found significant inconsistencies between the written and oral dying declarations, making them unreliable. The written declarations were discarded due to procedural lapses and the oral declarations were deemed untrustworthy due to varying accounts and the fact that they were made to interested parties.
- Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The prosecution failed to provide sufficient corroborative evidence to support the oral dying declarations. The Court noted that the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-12 were not recorded by the police during the investigation and were made for the first time in court.
- Benefit of Doubt: The Court emphasized that the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused, and in this case, the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration created reasonable doubt.
- Reliability of Evidence: The Court stressed the importance of reliable and consistent evidence, particularly in cases involving dying declarations, which are an exception to the rule against hearsay.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inconsistency in Dying Declarations | 40% |
| Lack of Corroborative Evidence | 30% |
| Benefit of Doubt | 20% |
| Reliability of Evidence | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (consideration of legal aspects) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered alternative interpretations, but rejected them due to the lack of reliable evidence and the inconsistencies in the dying declarations. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.
“The entire issue in the present case hinges on the admissibility and evidentiary value of the dying declarations made by the deceased…”
“In cases involving multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, the question that arises for consideration is as to which of the said dying declarations ought to be believed by the Court and what would be the guiding factors for arriving at a just and lawful conclusion.”
“We are therefore of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the obligation cast on it of leading trustworthy corroborative evidence to back-up the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-12.”
Key Takeaways
- Importance of Procedural Correctness: The judgment highlights the critical importance of following proper procedures when recording dying declarations, especially by police and magistrates. Any lapses can render the declarations unreliable.
- Reliability of Oral Dying Declarations: Oral dying declarationsare generally considered weaker evidence, especially if made to interested witnesses or for the first time in court. They must be corroborated by other evidence to be considered reliable.
- Consistency is Key: Dying declarations must be consistent with each other and with other evidence presented in the case. Any significant inconsistencies can undermine their credibility.
- Benefit of Doubt: The judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused. The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any inconsistencies or lack of corroborative evidence can lead to an acquittal.
- Burden of Proof: The burden of proof always lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Impact of the Judgment
This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts about the importance of scrutinizing dying declarations and not relying on them blindly. It underscores the need for a thorough examination of all evidence, including the circumstances under which the dying declarations were made. The judgment also emphasizes the need for corroborative evidence to support oral dying declarations, especially when made to interested witnesses. This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving dowry deaths and other similar offenses where dying declarations are crucial pieces of evidence. It reinforces the need for consistency, reliability, and procedural correctness in the recording and evaluation of such declarations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction in this dowry death case highlights the critical importance of consistent, reliable, and procedurally correct evidence, particularly in the form of dying declarations. The Court’s careful scrutiny of the inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the case underscores the need for a thorough evaluation of all evidence before a conviction is upheld. The judgment reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused and that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This case serves as a significant precedent for future cases involving dowry deaths and other similar offenses, emphasizing the need for a just and fair legal process.