Supreme Court Partially Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Naeem vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 5, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 169
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a dying declaration be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a woman who was set ablaze. The court examined the reliability of the dying declaration and its implications for the accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Shahin Parveen, who suffered severe burns and later died. On December 1, 2016, Shahin Parveen was admitted to the District Hospital, Moradabad, with 80% burns. She alleged that she was set ablaze by her brother-in-law, Pappi @ Mashkoor, and his wife, Naeema, along with Naeema’s brother, Naeem. Shahin Parveen stated that they were pressuring her to enter immoral trafficking and prostitution.

Shahin Parveen’s complaint was transcribed, and an FIR was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Later that day, a dying declaration was recorded by Raj Kumar Bhaskar (PW-5), the Naib Tehsildar. Shahin Parveen was then moved to Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, where she died on December 2, 2016. The case was then altered to Section 302 of the IPC.

The prosecution argued that after the death of Shahin Parveen’s husband, the accused began pressuring her into prostitution. When she refused, they assaulted her and eventually set her on fire. According to the prosecution, on the day of the incident, the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all three accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The accused appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which upheld the trial court’s decision. The accused then approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The court also considered the evidentiary value of a dying declaration.

The court referred to the case of Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1, which laid down the principles regarding the acceptance of a dying declaration as the sole basis for conviction. The court observed that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court. The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination.

The Supreme Court reiterated that while corroboration of a dying declaration is a rule of prudence, it is not an absolute rule of law. If the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the conviction was solely based on the dying declaration, which was not reliable. They pointed out a discrepancy in the timing of the dying declaration and the discharge slip, suggesting that the declaration could not have been recorded as claimed.

The State argued that both the trial court and the High Court correctly appreciated the evidence and that the dying declaration was indeed trustworthy. They emphasized the testimony of Raj Kumar Bhaskar (PW-5), who recorded the dying declaration, and the medical certification of the victim’s fitness to give the statement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused could be solely based on the dying declaration of the deceased.

The court also considered the specific roles of each accused in the commission of the crime.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the principles for relying on a dying declaration as the sole basis for conviction.

The court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Judgment

The court found the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6) to be cogent, trustworthy, and reliable. The court noted that the medical officer certified the victim’s fitness before and after recording the statement.

The court, citing Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1, reiterated that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence and is not the result of tutoring or imagination.

However, the court noted that while the dying declaration implicated all three accused, it only specified the role of Pappi @ Mashkoor in pouring kerosene and setting the victim ablaze. The roles of Naeema and Naeem were only described as “aiding” without specific details.

Therefore, the court upheld the conviction of Pappi @ Mashkoor but acquitted Naeema and Naeem, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

The court observed: “The statement of the victim would therefore reveal that the motive attributed by the deceased is to accused No. 1 Pappi @ Mashkoor. She stated that she had a quarrel with her devar Pappi @ Mashkoor over partition of the house. It can further be seen that the role of pouring kerosene on the victim and setting her ablaze is also attributed to accused No. 1 Pappi @ Mashkoor.”

The court further stated: “Insofar as other two accused i.e. Naeema (wife of accused No.1 Pappi @ Mashkoor) and her brother Naeem are concerned, the statement of the victim only states that they aided her devar Pappi @ Mashkoor. However, no specific role of how they assisted accused No. 1 Pappi @ Mashkoor could be found in the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-6).”

The court concluded: “We therefore find that, though the said dying declaration can be the sole basis of maintaining the conviction of accused No. 1 Pappi @ Mashkoor, in the absence of any specific role attributed to accused No. 2 Naeema and accused No. 3 Naeem, they are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the dying declaration. The medical certification and the testimony of the Naib Tehsildar (PW-5) affirmed the victim’s fitness to make the statement. However, the lack of specific details regarding the roles of accused No. 2 and 3 led the court to grant them the benefit of the doubt. The court emphasized the need for specific roles to be attributed to each accused for conviction, especially when relying solely on a dying declaration.

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is reliable and inspires the court’s confidence.
• The court must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and not influenced by tutoring or imagination.
• While corroboration is a rule of prudence, it is not mandatory if the declaration is found to be true and voluntary.
• Specific roles of each accused must be established, especially when relying solely on a dying declaration.
• Benefit of the doubt should be given to the accused if their specific roles are not clearly established.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the release of Naeema and Naeem forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The judgment reaffirms the legal position that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is reliable, as established in Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1. However, it also emphasizes the need for specific roles to be attributed to each accused, especially when relying solely on a dying declaration. This case highlights that while a dying declaration holds significant evidentiary value, it cannot be used to convict individuals without a clear and specific attribution of their role in the crime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, upholding the conviction of Pappi @ Mashkoor while acquitting Naeema and Naeem due to the lack of specific roles attributed to them in the dying declaration. The judgment underscores the importance of a reliable dying declaration and the need for clarity in attributing roles to each accused in a criminal case.