Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Dowry Death Case Due to Inconsistencies in Dying Declaration: Sultan vs State of UP (03 August 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 03 August 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 701
Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J. and Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can a conviction be solely based on a dying declaration if there are significant inconsistencies and doubts about its veracity? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had upheld a conviction based on a dying declaration. The Supreme Court, however, found several discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. This case highlights the importance of scrutinizing dying declarations and ensuring they are free from doubt before relying on them for conviction.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Khushboo, who died from burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that her sister-in-law, Noori, her husband, Sultan Akhtar, and her mother-in-law, Rukhsana, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. The incident was said to have occurred around 1:00-1:30 PM on May 28, 2011, while Khushboo’s husband, Ashraf, was away. The primary evidence against Noori and Sultan was a dying declaration recorded at 6:20 PM on the same day by Naib Tehsildar, Satish Kumar Kushwaha (PW-5). In this declaration, Khushboo stated that Noori, Sultan, and Rukhsana had set her on fire because they believed she was “characterless” and frequently quarreled with her, asking her to leave the house. However, the First Information Report (FIR), registered later at 10:35 PM, did not mention the dying declaration.

The appellants, Noori and Sultan Akhtar, were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder, and their conviction was upheld by the High Court. Rukhsana, the mother-in-law, did not appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellants, Noori and Sultan Akhtar, appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging their conviction.

Timeline

Legal Framework

Several legal provisions were central to this case:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. The appellants were convicted under this section read with Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with statements made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, etc. It is an exception to the general rule of hearsay evidence. Dying declarations are admissible under this section. The court noted that while dying declarations are admissible, their evidentiary value depends on the facts of each case. The court must ensure that the statement is reliable, inspires confidence, and is not a result of tutoring or prompting.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the dying declaration of Khushboo, recorded by Satish Kumar Kushwaha (PW-5). The prosecution argued that this statement directly implicated Noori and Sultan Akhtar in the crime. The prosecution also presented the testimony of Yousuf Ali (PW-1), the father of the deceased, and other witnesses who stated that Khushboo had been burnt by her in-laws.

The defense argued that there were several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. They pointed out that:

• The FIR did not mention the dying declaration.
• The Investigating Officer (PW-11) was unaware of the dying declaration until two days after it was recorded.
• Noori and Sultan Akhtar were residing separately from Khushboo at the time of the incident, and there was no evidence to show their presence at the scene of the crime.
• The dying declaration did not mention dowry as a motive, whereas some witnesses claimed that dowry was the cause of the incident.
• The doctor who purportedly signed the dying declaration was not produced as a witness.

Noori and Sultan Akhtar, in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claimed that they were not present at Khushboo’s residence on the day of the incident. They stated that they were at Saint Zahria Academy School, where they resided.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the dying declaration (Exhibit Ka-3) was reliable and could be the sole basis for conviction.
2. Whether the conviction of Noori and Sultan Akhtar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was justified, given the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This provision makes dying declarations admissible as evidence. The court emphasized that while admissible, the weight given to such declarations depends on the specific facts of each case.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and the submissions made by both parties. The Court noted that the dying declaration was recorded at 6:20 PM, while the FIR, registered at 10:35 PM, did not mention it. The Investigating Officer (PW-11) only learned about the dying declaration on May 30, 2011. The Court also highlighted that the Naib Tehsildar (PW-5) did not produce any written order from the City Magistrate to record the dying declaration.

The Court also observed that Rashid Naeem (PW-10), a neighbor, did not see Noori and Sultan Akhtar at the scene of the incident. Furthermore, Noori and Sultan Akhtar were residing separately from Khushboo, and there was no evidence of their presence at the time of the incident. The Court also noted that the dying declaration did not mention dowry as a motive, which was in contrast to the statements of some witnesses. The doctor who purportedly signed the dying declaration was not examined by the prosecution.

Based on these inconsistencies and contradictions, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of Noori and Sultan Akhtar beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated that the dying declaration did not inspire confidence and could not be the sole basis for conviction. Therefore, the Court set aside the conviction of Noori and Sultan Akhtar.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872: The Court acknowledged that dying declarations are admissible under this provision but emphasized that their evidentiary value depends on the facts of each case. The Court found that in this instance, the dying declaration was not reliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found that the dying declaration, which was the primary piece of evidence, was not reliable due to several factors:

• The FIR did not mention the dying declaration, which raised doubts about its authenticity.
• The Investigating Officer was unaware of the dying declaration until two days after it was recorded, indicating a lack of proper procedure.
• The Naib Tehsildar who recorded the dying declaration did not produce any written order from the City Magistrate.
• The doctor who purportedly signed the dying declaration was not examined by the prosecution.
• The lack of evidence of the presence of Noori and Sultan Akhtar at the scene of the incident further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Court also noted that the dying declaration did not mention dowry as a motive, which contradicted the statements of some witnesses. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of Noori and Sultan Akhtar beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaways

• Dying declarations, while admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872, must be scrutinized carefully for their reliability and veracity.
• Inconsistencies, contradictions, and procedural lapses can cast doubt on the authenticity of a dying declaration.
• A conviction cannot be based solely on a dying declaration if there are significant doubts about its correctness.
• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
• The absence of corroborative evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• The failure to examine key witnesses, such as the doctor who signed the dying declaration, can raise questions about the reliability of the evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that Noori and Sultan Akhtar be released immediately unless they were required to be detained in any other case. The impugned judgments and convictions were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration, while admissible as evidence, cannot be the sole basis for conviction if it is unreliable due to inconsistencies, contradictions, and lack of corroboration. The Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. This case reinforces the importance of thorough investigation and the need for reliable evidence in criminal cases.

Conclusion

In the case of Sultan vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Noori and Sultan Akhtar, who were accused of murdering Khushboo. The Court found that the dying declaration, which was the primary evidence against them, was unreliable due to several inconsistencies and contradictions. The Court reiterated that dying declarations must be carefully scrutinized before being used as the sole basis for conviction. This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that justice is served based on reliable evidence and that the benefit of doubt is given to the accused.