Supreme Court overturns conviction in poisoning case based on dying declaration: Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 7 December 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1069

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained when there are conflicting dying declarations? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a husband accused of poisoning his wife. The Court overturned the conviction, highlighting the importance of reliable evidence, particularly in cases relying heavily on dying declarations. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of a woman who allegedly consumed poison. The prosecution claimed that the woman’s husband, Surjit Singh, the appellant, poisoned her due to ongoing marital disputes. The prosecution’s case rested primarily on a dying declaration recorded by a police officer, Surjit Singh (PW-10), where the deceased stated that her husband had administered the poison. However, another dying declaration was made before Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13), where the deceased stated that she consumed the poison herself.

The Trial Court convicted Surjit Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant based on the dying declaration recorded by Surjit Singh (PW-10) and the testimony of the deceased’s mother, Kaushalya Devi (PW-7). The Trial Court discarded the testimony of Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13). The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder. The prosecution’s case rested on the dying declaration of the deceased as a crucial piece of evidence. A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is about to die, concerning the cause of their death. It is admissible as evidence in court under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court had to consider the admissibility and reliability of the dying declarations in this case, given the conflicting versions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the dying declaration recorded by Surjit Singh (PW-10) should be discarded because the doctor did not certify that the deceased was fit to make a statement when the statement was recorded.
• The counsel emphasized that the first dying declaration was made before Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13), where the deceased stated that she consumed the poison herself.
• The counsel pointed out several lacunae in the prosecution’s case.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Courts rightly discarded the testimony of Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13) because he did not inform the Station House Officer (SHO) about the deceased’s disclosure of consuming poison herself.
• The State contended that the doctor certified the deceased’s fitness to make a statement one hour before the dying declaration was recorded by Surjit Singh (PW-10). Therefore, there was no reason to discard the testimony of Surjit Singh (PW-10) and the genuineness of the dying declaration recorded by him.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the dying declaration recorded by Surjit Singh (PW-10) was reliable and admissible as evidence, given the conflicting dying declaration made before Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13)?

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:

There were no cases or books mentioned in the judgment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited by the court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The reliability of the dying declaration recorded by Surjit Singh (PW-10) was questionable due to the lack of proper certification and the non-examination of the doctor who allegedly certified the deceased’s fitness.
• The testimony of Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13) was considered credible and reliable as he was an independent witness, and there was no reason to doubt his version of the deceased’s statement.
• The Court noted the serious doubt created in the prosecution’s case due to the conflicting dying declarations and the non-examination of a crucial witness (Dr. Sudhir Sharma).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to do so in this case due to the conflicting dying declarations and the lack of reliable evidence.

The Court considered the argument that the doctor had given a fitness certificate. However, the Court found that this certificate was not sufficient since the doctor did not confirm the fitness of the deceased while the statement was being recorded. The Court also noted the absence of the doctor as a witness, which further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Court stated, “Thus, even according to Surjit Singh (PW-10), the doctor, who gave certificate at 4:30 p.m, declined to give a certificate that when the statement of the deceased was being recorded, she was fit to give a statement.”

The Court also observed, “There is nothing brought on record to show that Dr. Sudhir Sharma examined the deceased before giving certificate of fitness at 4:30 p.m. What is most crucial is that Dr. Sudhir Sharma has not been examined as a prosecution witness.”

The Court further noted, “A serious doubt is created in the mind of the Court about the entire prosecution case as Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13), who was the prosecution witness, was not declared as hostile and as one of the most crucial witnesses i.e., Dr. Sudhir Sharma was not examined.”

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench.

Key Takeaways

• The reliability of a dying declaration is crucial in criminal cases, especially when it forms the primary basis of the prosecution’s case.
• Conflicting dying declarations can create serious doubts about the prosecution’s case, leading to acquittal.
• The testimony of independent witnesses is given significant weight, especially when there is no reason to doubt their credibility.
• The prosecution must ensure that all crucial witnesses are examined, and any failure to do so can lead to adverse inferences.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The appellant was acquitted of the offence alleged against him. The Court also directed that the appellant’s bail bonds be canceled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on a dying declaration if there is another credible dying declaration which contradicts it, and if the reliability of the first dying declaration is questionable. This judgment reinforces the principle that in criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court’s decision highlights the importance of examining all evidence carefully and ensuring that the prosecution has presented a reliable and consistent case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (2023) emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials, particularly when relying on dying declarations. The Court’s decision to overturn the conviction underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for thorough investigation and the careful examination of all evidence, especially in cases where the primary evidence is a dying declaration.