Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to tampered dying declaration: Balaji vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 230

Judges: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer

Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the primary evidence, a dying declaration, is found to be tampered with? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was convicted based on a dying declaration that was later found to have been altered. This case highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence in criminal trials and the high standards required for a conviction. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, emphasizing the unreliability of the tampered dying declaration and raising serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.

The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and S. Abdul Nazeer. The opinion was unanimous.

Case Background

On August 28, 2006, at approximately 1:30 PM, a police officer, Sikander Pakhali (PW12), received information about a woman being stabbed. Upon reaching the house of Shamalbai Lohare (PW2), the landlady, he found the deceased, Lata, lying in a pool of blood. Lata was immediately taken to the hospital between 1:45 PM and 2:00 PM. Dr. Dhele (PW11) informed PW12 that Lata was fit to give a statement, which PW12 then recorded. In her statement, Lata accused her brother, Balaji (the appellant), of stabbing her due to her relationship with Mahendra Dhaware (PW4). Simultaneously, Balaji arrived at the police station with bloodstained clothes and a knife, confessing to the crime to officer Changdeo (PW6). Lata succumbed to her injuries at approximately 2:45 PM.

The dying declaration of the deceased was treated as the First Information Report (FIR), and a report was sent to the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant/accused was tried for the offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the punishment for murder. The prosecution’s case hinged on the dying declaration of the deceased, the alleged motive, and the accused’s voluntary surrender at the police station with bloodstained clothes and a knife.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested on three main pillars:

• Dying Declaration: The prosecution presented the dying declaration of the deceased as the primary evidence, stating that she had identified the accused as her attacker.
• Motive: The prosecution argued that the accused was motivated by the deceased’s illicit relationship with Mahendra Dhaware (PW4).
• Voluntary Surrender: The prosecution highlighted that the accused voluntarily went to the police station with bloodstained clothes and a knife, which they presented as evidence of his guilt.

The defense countered these arguments by pointing out several inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances:

• Tampered Dying Declaration: The defense argued that the dying declaration had been tampered with. The original declaration had the name of Mahendra (PW4) initially, which was struck off and replaced with the name of the accused, Balaji. The defense contended that the prosecution had not provided a valid reason for this tampering.
• Victim’s Condition: The defense presented medical records and witness testimonies to show that the deceased was in a critical condition, semi-unconscious, and had sustained multiple severe injuries. They argued that it was highly unlikely for her to have given a detailed statement as claimed by the prosecution.
• Lack of Motive: The defense argued that the accused was aware of the deceased’s relationship with PW4 and had never objected to it. It was also highlighted that the accused, the deceased, and PW4 used to meet and have parties together. The defense also pointed out that PW4 had threatened the deceased with a knife on the day of the incident.
• Contradictory Police Testimony: The defense pointed out that the police officer (PW6) who was allegedly present when the accused surrendered did not register a crime based on the accused’s statement. The crime was registered later based on the dying declaration. The defense highlighted that the station entry was made by another officer (ASI Sonkavade), suggesting that PW6 was not present as claimed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the dying declaration is reliable and admissible as evidence, given the tampering and the victim’s medical condition.
2. Whether the prosecution has proven the motive for the commission of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the circumstance of the accused voluntarily going to the police station with bloodstained clothes and a knife proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The judgment did not cite any specific cases or books. The court primarily relied on the factual evidence and witness testimonies presented during the trial. The court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code: This section defines the punishment for murder.

The court analyzed the evidence in light of these provisions to determine whether the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides, ultimately concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court observed that the dying declaration, which was the primary evidence, had been tampered with, and the victim’s medical condition made it unlikely that she could have given such a detailed statement. The court also noted that the motive alleged by the prosecution was not convincing, as the accused was aware of the deceased’s relationship and never objected to it. The court further found that the circumstances surrounding the accused’s voluntary surrender were suspicious, as the police officer who was allegedly present did not register a crime based on the accused’s statement.

The court stated:

• “We have perused the original dying declaration which has been tampered with.”
• “In our considered opinion, it would be unsafe to rely upon this dying declaration of the victim to base the conviction.”
• “In our considered opinion, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt will go in favour of the accused.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the inconsistencies and doubts surrounding the prosecution’s evidence. The tampering of the dying declaration, the victim’s critical medical condition, and the lack of a clear motive all contributed to the court’s conclusion that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also noted the contradictory testimonies of the police officers, which further weakened the prosecution’s case. The sentiment of the court was that the prosecution had created a “make believe story” and tried to improve its case from stage to stage.

The analysis shows that the factual aspects of the case held greater weight in the mind of the court.

Key Takeaways

• Integrity of Evidence: The judgment underscores the critical importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence, especially in criminal trials. Tampering with evidence can render it inadmissible and unreliable.
• Reliability of Dying Declarations: Dying declarations must be scrutinized carefully, especially when there are doubts about the victim’s capacity to make a statement or when there is evidence of tampering.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution has the burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If there are inconsistencies or doubts in the evidence, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused.
• Importance of Witness Testimony: The credibility of witnesses, including police officers and medical professionals, is crucial in establishing the facts of a case. Contradictory testimonies can weaken the prosecution’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and ordered the release of the accused/appellant if he was not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be based solely on a tampered dying declaration. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any doubts or inconsistencies in the evidence must benefit the accused. This case reinforces the principle that the integrity of evidence is paramount in criminal trials and highlights the need for careful scrutiny of dying declarations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Balaji vs. The State of Maharashtra highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of evidence and the high standards required for a conviction in criminal trials. The Court’s decision to overturn the conviction was based on the unreliability of the tampered dying declaration, the lack of a clear motive, and the contradictory testimonies of the police officers. This case serves as a reminder that the benefit of the doubt must always go to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.