Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case based on dying declaration: Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 7 May 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 280

Judges: Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a dying declaration be the sole basis for conviction in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question while examining the reliability of a dying declaration in a case where the victim suffered severe burn injuries. The Court overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for caution when relying solely on such statements. This case highlights the importance of corroborative evidence and the circumstances surrounding the recording of a dying declaration.

The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose. Justice Surya Kant authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a long-standing dispute between the families of Jayamma, wife of Reddinaika (Appellant No. 1), and Jayamma, wife of Sanna Ramanaika (the deceased). On 10 September 1998, Thippeswamynaika, son of the deceased, allegedly assaulted and injured Reddinaika. Following this, on 21 September 1998, the appellants confronted the deceased at her home, demanding Rs. 4,000 for Reddinaika’s medical expenses. After a heated argument, they allegedly doused the deceased in kerosene and set her on fire. The deceased’s son, Ravi Kumar (PW-2), and daughter-in-law, Saroja Bai (PW-5), tried to extinguish the flames. The appellants fled the scene.

The injured Jayamma was taken to Primary Health Centre (P.H.C.), Thalak, where she received initial treatment from Dr. A. Thippeswamy (PW-16). Dr. Thippeswamy informed the Thalak Police Station, and SHO K.V. Mallikarjunappa (PW-11) recorded the statement of the injured Jayamma (Ex. P-5), implicating the appellants. Initially, a case was registered under Sections 504, 307, and 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, Jayamma succumbed to her injuries on 23 September 1998, and the charges were altered to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, Additional Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, framed charges under Sections 504, 302, and 114 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution presented nineteen witnesses and thirteen documents. The appellants denied the charges. Several prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s son (PW-2) and daughter-in-law (PW-5), turned hostile, contradicting the prosecution’s version. The trial court acquitted the appellants, finding the dying declaration (Ex. P-5) unreliable due to mitigating circumstances and lack of corroborative evidence.

The High Court of Karnataka reversed the trial court’s decision, emphasizing the dying declaration (Ex. P-5) and the testimonies of PW-11 and PW-16, who corroborated the statement. The High Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of statements by a person who is dead or cannot be found. Specifically, clause (1) of Section 32 makes statements of a deceased person admissible as evidence when the statement is related to the cause of their death or the circumstances leading to it. This is commonly known as a “dying declaration.”

Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states:
“Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured, without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:—(1) When it relates to cause of death.—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.”

The Supreme Court noted that a dying declaration is an exception to the general rule against hearsay evidence. It is admitted on the premise that the anticipation of death creates a sense of truthfulness, similar to that of a person under oath. The court emphasized that while a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is credible, it must be scrutinized carefully to ensure it is not the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination.

The court also considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court’s order was cryptic and failed to properly scrutinize the evidence, especially since it reversed a well-reasoned acquittal by the trial court.
• The High Court did not evaluate the entire evidence or address the specific findings of the trial court, thus failing to discharge its duty under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The dying declaration (Ex. P-5) was shrouded in doubtful circumstances and could not be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.
• The High Court overlooked the fact that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the crime.
• The dying declaration was recorded without a medical certificate attesting to the mental fitness of the deceased.

State’s Arguments:

• The High Court had given a well-reasoned judgment with specific reasons for interfering with the acquittal order.
• The dying declaration was clinching and sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
• Even in cases of severe burn injuries, courts can rely upon the dying declaration to convict the accused.

Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the dying declaration was not only unreliable due to the circumstances of its recording but also because it was inconsistent with the natural conduct of the victim’s family. They highlighted the lack of immediate police complaint by the family, suggesting a possibility of suicide rather than homicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the trial court in exercise of its powers under Section 378 of the CrPC?
2. Whether the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased died a homicidal death at the hands of the appellants?

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 Supreme Court relied on several precedents to emphasize the need for caution when relying on a dying declaration, especially when it is shrouded in doubtful circumstances. The Court also emphasized the duty of the High Court to scrutinize evidence when reversing an acquittal.

• Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]* and other cases on interference with acquittal were cited to highlight that the High Court should not routinely reverse a trial court’s acquittal unless there is a complete misreading of the evidence.
• Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2011) 10 SCC 173]* was used to emphasize that a dying declaration must be true and voluntary to be the basis for conviction.
• Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors v. State of A.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 695]* was cited to highlight the importance of a medical certificate attesting to the mental fitness of the deceased before recording a dying declaration.
• Sampat Babso Kale and Another v. State of Maharashtra [2019 (4) SCC 739]* was used to show that a dying declaration recorded after administering painkillers should be viewed with caution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Doubtful Circumstances of the Dying Declaration: The court found the dying declaration (Ex. P-5) to be unreliable due to several factors. The detailed narration of events seemed improbable for an illiterate, old person with severe burn injuries. The statement was not in a question-answer format, suggesting undue influence from the police officer.
• Lack of Proper Medical Endorsement: The doctor’s endorsement of the victim’s mental fitness was made after the statement was recorded, not before, which is against normal practice. The victim had been administered painkillers, raising doubts about her mental state.
• Contradictions in Witness Statements: There were contradictions between the doctor’s and the police officer’s statements regarding the extent of the victim’s burn injuries, particularly on her hands. The victim’s son and daughter-in-law also contradicted the prosecution’s version, suggesting the possibility of suicide.
• Absence of Motive: The alleged motive for the crime was weak and uncorroborated. The prosecution failed to establish the truth of the incident that led to the alleged motive.
• Conduct of Parties: The court noted that the victim’s family did not immediately report the crime to the police, which was unusual in a case of homicide.
• The High Court’s error in reversing the trial court’s acquittal: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not have reversed the trial court’s acquittal, as the trial court’s view was a possible one based on the evidence.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Ratio of Fact:Law:

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility of the victim committing suicide, which was supported by the statements of the victim’s son and daughter-in-law. The court rejected the High Court’s reliance on the dying declaration due to the serious doubts about its genuineness and reliability. The final decision was reached after a thorough analysis of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s decision to convict the appellants was erroneous. The court found the dying declaration unreliable due to the victim’s condition, the lack of proper medical endorsement, and the contradictions in witness statements. The court emphasized that a dying declaration should not be the sole basis for conviction unless it is completely trustworthy.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The narration of events in the dying declaration is so accurate, that even a witness in the normal state of mind, cannot be expected to depose with such precision.”
• “The doctor (PW-16) made the endorsement that the victim was in a fit state of mind to make the statement ‘after’ the statement was recorded and not ‘before’ thereto — being the normal practice.”
• “We find it difficult to uphold the conviction only on the basis of the dying declaration Ex. P-5.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, and both judges concurred with the final decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases involving dying declarations. It emphasizes the need for a cautious approach and the importance of corroborative evidence. The court’s detailed analysis of the circumstances surrounding the recording of the dying declaration sets a precedent for future cases to ensure that such statements are truly voluntary and reliable.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforced the existing principles regarding the evidentiary value of dying declarations and the need for caution when relying solely on such statements.

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration should not be the sole basis for conviction unless it is completely trustworthy and free from doubt.
• The mental and physical condition of the declarant must be carefully assessed before relying on a dying declaration.
• Medical endorsements attesting to the declarant’s fitness to make a statement should be made before the statement is recorded, not after.
• Corroborative evidence is essential, especially when a dying declaration is shrouded in doubtful circumstances.
• High Courts should exercise caution when reversing a trial court’s acquittal, especially when the trial court’s view is a possible one based on the evidence.

The judgment highlights the importance of procedural safeguards when recording dying declarations and ensures that convictions are based on reliable evidence. This decision is likely to influence future cases involving dying declarations, emphasizing the need for meticulous scrutiny and corroborative evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and acquitted the appellants. The appellants were already on bail, and their bail bonds were discharged.

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 doubtful circumstances, lack of proper medical endorsement, contradictions in witness statements, and absence of motive. This case reinforces the principle that courts must exercise caution and seek corroborative evidence before relying on a dying declaration, especially when the declarant has suffered severe injuries and has been administered painkillers. The Supreme Court has not changed the previous position of law, but has clarified the existing law.

Conclusion

In Jayamma & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction of the appellants, emphasizing that a dying declaration should not be the sole basis for conviction unless it is completely trustworthy. The Court found the dying declaration in this case to be unreliable due to several factors, including the victim’s condition, lack of proper medical endorsement, and contradictions in witness statements. This case serves as a reminder of the need for meticulous scrutiny and corroborative evidence in cases involving dying declarations. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards and the need to ensure that convictions are based on reliable evidence.

Category

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Category: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

Parent Category: Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Child Category: Section 32, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Category: Dying Declaration

Parent Category: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Child Category: Section 378, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

FAQ

Q: What is a dying declaration?

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

Q: Can a dying declaration be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case?

A: Yes, a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be credible, voluntary, and free from doubt. However, courts must exercise caution and look for corroborative evidence.

Q: What factors make a dying declaration unreliable?

A: Several factors can make a dying declaration unreliable, including the declarant’s physical and mental condition, the presence of tutoring or prompting, contradictions in the statement, and lack of proper medical endorsement.

Q: What is the importance of amedical endorsement when recording a dying declaration?

A: A medical endorsement from a doctor is crucial to attest to the declarant’s mental fitness to make a statement. This endorsement should ideally be made before the statement is recorded, not after.

Q: What is the role of corroborative evidence in cases involving dying declarations?

A: Corroborative evidence is essential to support the credibility of a dying declaration, especially when it is shrouded in doubtful circumstances. It helps to ensure that the conviction is based on reliable evidence.

Q: What was the main issue in the case of Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka?

A: The main issue was whether a dying declaration could be the sole basis for conviction in a murder case, especially when the circumstances surrounding the recording of the declaration were doubtful.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka?

A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction of the appellants, holding that the dying declaration in this case was unreliable and could not be the sole basis for conviction.