Supreme Court overturns conviction in dowry death case: Sampat Babso Kale vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 09, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 333

Judges: S. A. Bobde, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a conviction be solely based on a dying declaration when the victim suffered severe burns and was administered painkillers? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal concerning a dowry death case. The court examined the reliability of the dying declaration and the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. A. Bobde and Justice Deepak Gupta, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

Sampat Babso Kale (Appellant No. 1) married Sharada Sampat Kale on April 25, 1987. After living in Thergaon, Chinchwad for about a year, they moved to a quarter in MIDC Colony, Chinchwad. On the night of July 8, 1989, Sharada suffered severe burn injuries and died in the early hours of July 9, 1989. At the time of the incident, Tarabai Dhanaji Dhaigude (Appellant No. 2), the sister of Sampat, was staying at their house. Sharada sustained 98% burn injuries. She gave two dying declarations, one to Dr. Sanjeev Chibbar (PW-5) and the other to Mr. Kamlakar Adhav (PW-2), a Special Judicial Magistrate.

The prosecution argued that after about one and a half years of cordial relations, Sampat began ill-treating Sharada because she could not conceive. They further alleged that Sampat wanted to remarry while Sharada was still alive. The prosecution contended that Sampat and his sister, with common intention, poured kerosene on Sharada and set her on fire.

The defense argued that Sharada belonged to a well-off family and was living with her husband in a comfortable quarter. The defense stated that Sampat’s parents lived in a small, one-room hut in a village with no facilities. Sampat wanted Sharada to care for his parents, but she refused due to the lack of amenities. The defense claimed that on the evening of July 8, 1989, both appellants requested Sharada to go to the village, which upset her, leading her to commit suicide. Sampat reportedly tried to douse the fire and sought help from neighbors to call for an ambulance. When no ambulance could be contacted, he went to the hospital to get one. Sharada was admitted to Sassoon Hospital, Pune, where she died.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the accused, giving them the benefit of the doubt. The trial court did not rely on the dying declarations, citing the possibility of suicide. The High Court of Bombay, however, reversed the trial court’s decision. The High Court found no reason to discredit the dying declarations, deeming them reliable based on the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5. The High Court concluded that the trial court’s reasoning was flawed and convicted the appellants. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The appellants were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 498A of the IPC, which addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. These sections are part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines crimes and their punishments in India. The charges were read with Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder, which is imprisonment for life or death.
• Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman, which is punishable with imprisonment and fine.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, making each person liable for the act as if done by him alone.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The deceased was a sensitive lady who was deeply in love with her husband but did not want to live in a small village hut.
• The deceased’s sister had also committed suicide, indicating a predisposition to such actions.
• There were discrepancies in the evidence, making the dying declarations unreliable.
• The fire occurred in the kitchen, not the bedroom, suggesting suicide.
• The defense version was probable, and the benefit of the doubt should have been given to the accused.
• The appellate court should not have interfered with the trial court’s findings.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The dying declarations were reliable and consistent with the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5.
• The accused had a motive to kill the deceased due to dowry demands and her inability to conceive.
• The High Court was right in overturning the acquittal by the trial court.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The defense innovatively argued that the location of the fire in the kitchen, along with the victim’s removal of her ornaments, strongly suggested suicide, challenging the prosecution’s narrative of murder.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the acquittal by the trial court.
2. Whether the dying declarations were reliable and could be the sole basis for conviction.
3. Whether the circumstances surrounding the incident pointed towards murder or suicide.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]* to emphasize that an appellate court should not lightly interfere with an acquittal by the trial court, especially when the trial court’s findings are based on a proper appreciation of evidence.
• The Court cited Sham Shankar Kankaria v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 13 SCC 165]* to underscore the importance of a dying declaration, while also noting that it should be truthful, voluntary, and not a result of any extraneous influence. The Court also highlighted that the accused lacks the power of cross-examination in a dying declaration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Doubt about the victim’s mental state: The court was not convinced that the victim was in a fit state of mind to make a reliable statement due to the severity of her burns (98%) and the administration of painkillers. The possibility of delusion was not ruled out.
• Location of the incident: The fact that the fire occurred in the kitchen, not the bedroom, raised doubts about the prosecution’s version of events.
• Removal of ornaments: The victim’s removal of her mangalsutra, peinjan, and glass bangles before the incident suggested the possibility of suicide, as these are ornaments that a married Indian woman would typically not remove.
• Non-examination of key witnesses: The prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses from the neighborhood who were the first to arrive at the scene.
• Trial court’s findings: The trial court’s decision to acquit the accused was based on a proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the victim committed suicide due to her sensitivity and unwillingness to live in the village. The court noted that the defense version could not be brushed aside, especially given the circumstances of the fire and the removal of the victim’s ornaments. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the trial court was right in acquitting the accused.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the trial court’s decision. The court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence when relying on a dying declaration, especially when there are doubts about the victim’s mental state.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “Though a dying declaration is entitled to great weight, it is worthwhile to note that the accused has no power of cross-examination.”
• “The court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailant.”
• “If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the majority opinion.

The judgment has potential implications for future cases involving dying declarations, particularly in circumstances where the victim has suffered severe injuries and may not be in a fit state of mind. It reinforces the need for corroborative evidence in such cases. The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing principles regarding the reliability of dying declarations and the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration, while important, cannot be the sole basis for conviction if there are doubts about the victim’s mental state.
• Corroborative evidence is necessary when the victim has suffered severe injuries and may not be in a fit state of mind to make a reliable statement.
• Appellate courts should not lightly interfere with the findings of the trial court, especially when the trial court’s decision is based on a proper appreciation of evidence.
• The location of the incident and the actions of the victim before the incident are crucial in determining whether it was a case of murder or suicide.

This judgment reinforces the importance of a thorough investigation and the need to examine all aspects of the case before arriving at a conclusion. It also highlights the limitations of appellate court interference in cases where the trial court has acquitted the accused based on a proper appreciation of evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• Appellant No. 1, who was in jail, should be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
• Appellant No. 2, who was on bail, should have her bail bonds discharged.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration cannot be the sole basis for conviction when there are doubts about the victim’s mental state due to severe injuries and the administration of painkillers. The judgment also reinforces the principle that an appellate court should not lightly interfere with an acquittal by the trial court, especially when the trial court’s findings are based on a proper appreciation of evidence. There was no change in the previous position of law; rather, the court reaffirmed existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court, thereby acquitting the accused. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence when relying on a dying declaration, especially when there are doubts about the victim’s mental state. The court also reiterated that an appellate court should not lightly interfere with an acquittal by the trial court.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Dying Declaration
• Murder
• Dowry Death
• Appellate Court
• Acquittal
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is a dying declaration?

A: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is about to die, explaining the circumstances of their death. It is considered an important piece of evidence in court.

Q: Can a conviction be solely based on a dying declaration?

A: While a dying declaration is significant, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction if there are doubts about the victim’s mental state or if it is not corroborated by other evidence.

Q: What should an appellate court consider when reviewing a trial court’s decision?

A: An appellate court should not lightly interfere with a trial court’s decision, especially if the trial court’s findings are based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The appellate court should respect the trial court’s assessment of the evidence and the demeanor of witnesses.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?

A: This judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence when relying on a dying declaration, especially when the victim has suffered severe injuries. It also reinforces the principle that appellate courts should not lightly overturn acquittals by trial courts.

Q: What should I do if I am facing a similar situation?

A: If you are facing a similar situation, it is crucial to consult with a legal professional who can provide guidance and representation. This judgment emphasizes the importance of a thorough investigation and the need to examine all aspects of the case before arriving at a conclusion.