Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Dowry Harassment Case: Rajaram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 16 December 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 1419

Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J. and Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Can a conviction for dowry harassment be sustained solely on a dying declaration that was later discredited by the High Court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of *Rajaram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh*, examining the evidentiary value of dying declarations in cases of dowry harassment. The court overturned the conviction of the appellant, emphasizing the need for reliable evidence. This judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Pushpa, who was brought to the hospital by her husband, Rajaram (the appellant), on April 23, 2009, with severe burn injuries. The police were informed, and a medico-legal certificate (MLC) was issued. Pushpa’s dying declaration was recorded. The police seized burnt clothes, a chimani, a broken mangalsutra, and a matchbox, all smelling of kerosene. Pushpa succumbed to her injuries on May 10, 2009. A post-mortem was conducted, and the seized articles were sent for forensic analysis. The police filed a charge sheet against the appellant and others under Sections 302, 307, 304B, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court framed charges against the accused, including the appellant, under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted the appellant and others under Section 498A of the IPC. The High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Santi Bai under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the appellant and other accused under Section 498A of the IPC. The appellant and other accused challenged their conviction and sentence before the High Court. The High Court rejected their appeals, affirming the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the IPC. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision under consideration in this case is Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of statements made by a person who is dead or cannot be found. Specifically, Section 32(1) states that:

“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 provision makes dying declarations relevant evidence, provided they relate to the cause of death or the circumstances leading to it. The court also considered Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the dying declaration (Ex. P-26) was inadmissible because it did not relate to the circumstances of the transaction that resulted in Pushpa’s death. The first dying declaration (Ex. P-11) did not mention any cruelty by the appellant.
• The appellant contended that the witnesses, including the deceased’s brother, father, sister, and brother-in-law, did not support the prosecution’s claims of cruelty.
• The appellant highlighted significant contradictions between the two dying declarations (Ex. P-11 and Ex. P-26), particularly regarding the time of recording and the absence of a doctor’s clearance for Ex. P-26. The appellant was not named in the first dying declaration (Ex. P-11).
• The appellant argued that since the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 304B of the IPC, the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be sustained based on a dying declaration that does not mention any act of cruelty by the appellant.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the appeal involved a factual assessment, which the Supreme Court should not interfere with.
• The State submitted that while some witnesses turned hostile, the dying declaration (Ex. P-26) was crucial. Ex. P-11 listed the perpetrators of the crime (setting her on fire), while Ex. P-26 detailed the cruelty she faced due to her disability and having a girl child, including dowry demands and taunts.
• The State argued that the absence of a doctor’s endorsement on the mental condition of the deceased in Ex. P-26 did not automatically invalidate it. The close proximity between the two statements was also highlighted.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the dying declaration (Ex. P-26) was admissible under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. Whether the conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained based on the available evidence, particularly the dying declarations.

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 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 Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra (2002 (SUPP1) SCR 697) to explain that the weight and utility of a dying declaration depend on the surrounding circumstances and the credibility the court attaches to it.
• The Court used Lakhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010 (9) SCR 705) to determine the approach to be adopted in cases with multiple dying declarations that contain inconsistencies.
• The Court referred to Jagbir Singh v State of NCT Delhi (2019) 8 SCC 779 to reiterate the principles for assessing the reliability of multiple dying declarations.
• The Court used Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to determine the admissibility of the dying declarations.
• The Court used Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to analyze whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for dowry harassment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court had discredited the second dying declaration (Ex. P-26), which was the only piece of evidence that directly implicated the appellant in acts of cruelty. The court noted that the first dying declaration (Ex. P-11) only focused on the incident of setting the deceased on fire and did not mention any cruelty by the appellant. The court emphasized that without the second dying declaration, there was no other material evidence to sustain the conviction under Section 498A of the IPC. The court also highlighted that the testimonies of the deceased’s relatives did not support the prosecution’s case. The court’s reasoning was centered on the need for reliable and credible evidence to sustain a conviction, particularly in cases involving serious charges like dowry harassment.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the primary evidence against the appellant was discredited by the High Court. The court held that a conviction could not be sustained without reliable evidence.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction for dowry harassment cannot be sustained solely on a dying declaration that has been discredited by a higher court.
• The evidentiary value of a dying declaration depends on its credibility, the surrounding circumstances, and its consistency with other evidence.
• In cases involving multiple dying declarations, courts must carefully scrutinize each declaration to determine its reliability.
• The absence of a doctor’s certification for a dying declaration can be a factor in determining its credibility, especially if the condition of the deceased is stated to be bad.
• The court emphasized the need for reliable and credible evidence to sustain a conviction, particularly in serious criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and the appellant’s conviction and sentence. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained solely on a dying declaration that has been discredited by a higher court. This judgment reinforces the principle that convictions must be based on reliable and credible evidence. The court did not introduce any new legal principles but reiterated the existing principles related to the admissibility and evidentiary value of dying declarations, particularly in cases involving multiple declarations with inconsistencies. The court emphasized the need for a careful and thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances of each case before relying on a dying declaration.

Conclusion

In *Rajaram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh*, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing that a conviction for dowry harassment cannot be sustained solely on a dying declaration that has been discredited by a higher court. The judgment underscores the importance of reliable and credible evidence in criminal cases and reinforces the need for a thorough analysis of all facts and circumstances before relying on a dying declaration.