Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Dowry Death Case: Naresh Kumar vs. Kalawati (2021)

Date of the Judgment: March 25, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 171

Judges: Navin Sinha, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can a conviction be solely based on a dying declaration if it contains inconsistencies and lacks proper certification of the deceased’s mental fitness? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal concerning a dowry death case. The Court upheld the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the need for a credible and consistent dying declaration. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Krishna Murari.

Case Background

The appellant, Naresh Kumar, is the brother of the deceased. The respondents, Kalawati (sister-in-law) and her husband, were accused of causing the death of the deceased. The deceased suffered 95% burn injuries on September 17, 1991, at approximately 4:30 PM and died the next day in the hospital. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, primarily the dying declaration of the deceased.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was set ablaze in her matrimonial home within seventeen months of her marriage. The deceased’s family alleged that the respondents were having an illicit affair and the deceased was an obstruction to the same. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the deceased committed suicide due to frustration over her inability to conceive and suspicion of a promiscuous relationship between the respondents.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the respondents, stating that the dying declaration was not proven according to law and did not inspire confidence. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The primary reasons for the acquittal were inconsistencies in the dying declarations and the absence of a doctor’s certificate confirming the deceased’s fitness of mind when making the declaration. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment references Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of dying declarations as evidence. It states that a statement made by a person as to the cause of their death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in their death, is relevant in cases where the cause of that person’s death comes into question.

“A dying declaration is admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It alone can also form the basis for conviction if it has been made voluntarily and inspires confidence.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The deceased suffered a homicidal death by burns in her matrimonial home within seventeen months of marriage.
• The deceased initially stated to a constable that her husband had set her on fire.
• The M.L.C. recorded by Dr. Anant Sinha at 6:00 pm, noted that she was conscious.
• The deceased stated to the doctor that she was set ablaze by her sister-in-law while making tea.
• The deceased made another statement to P.W. 25, the Assistant Sub-Inspector, in the presence of Dr. Anant Sinha, that her sister-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.
• The deceased was fully conscious and in a fit state of mind. The absence of a specific endorsement by the doctor regarding fitness cannot vitiate the evidentiary value of the dying declaration.
• The fitness to make the statement was certified by a Junior Resident Doctor, and the signature of Dr. Anant Sinha was proven by P.W. 19, the record clerk of the hospital.
• The failure to examine Dr. Anant Sinha cannot be fatal to the case.
• P.Ws. Nos. 3, 4, and 5 (mother, sister, and appellant) stated that the deceased told them in the hospital that her sister-in-law set her on fire.
• The respondents were having an illicit affair and considered the deceased an obstruction.
• The respondents were wrongly given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The appellant relied on State of Rajasthan vs. Parthu (2007) 12 SCC 754, Sukanti Moharana vs. State of Orissa (2009) 9 SCC 163, and Heeralal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC 671 in support of the dying declaration.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• According to the MLC, the deceased was only stated to be conscious, not necessarily in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration.
• There is no endorsement by Dr. Anant Sinha that the deceased was in a fit state of mind or that he was present during the recording of the statement.
• The deceased initially named only her husband as the person who set her on fire, with no reference to the sister-in-law or any dowry demand.
• The deceased later stated that she had been brought to the hospital by her husband and that her sister-in-law had set her on fire.
• The respondents argued that the deceased committed suicide due to frustration over her inability to conceive and suspicion of a promiscuous relationship between them.
• The view taken by the two courts is a reasonably possible view and does not call for interference by the Supreme Court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the primary issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the acquittal of the respondents based on the inconsistencies in the dying declarations and the lack of proper certification of the deceased’s mental fitness.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of dying declarations.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court cited State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 755 to reiterate that it would not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality.
• The Court relied on Paparambaka Rosamma and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1999) 7 SCC 695, to distinguish between consciousness and a fit state of mind, emphasizing that a person may be conscious but not necessarily in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration.
• The Court distinguished State of Rajasthan vs. Parthu (2007) 12 SCC 754, stating that in that case, the doctor was examined and proved the fitness of the state of mind, which was not the case here.
• The Court distinguished Sukanti Moharana vs. State of Orissa (2009) 9 SCC 163, noting that in that case, there was contemporaneous evidence that the doctor had recorded that the patient was oriented to time and place and mentally clear at the time of recording the dying declaration.
• The Court observed Heeralal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2009) 12 SCC 671, stating that the discrepancies in the two dying declarations meant that conviction could not be founded upon the dying declaration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies in the dying declarations and the lack of proper certification regarding the deceased’s mental fitness. The Court emphasized that a dying declaration must be credible and inspire confidence to form the basis of a conviction. The absence of the doctor’s testimony and the vacillating nature of the statements made by the deceased created sufficient doubt to warrant upholding the acquittal. The Court also considered the possibility of suicide as a reasonable defense.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration must be consistent and credible to form the sole basis of a conviction.
• The mental fitness of the declarant must be clearly established, preferably with a doctor’s certification or testimony.
• Inconsistencies in a dying declaration can raise doubts about its veracity and credibility.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if the dying declaration is suspect or if there are doubts about the nature and manner of death.
• The Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal unless there is a gross misappreciation of evidence or perversity in arriving at the findings.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration must be credible and consistent and the mental fitness of the declarant must be clearly established, preferably with a doctor’s certification or testimony, to form the sole basis of a conviction. The judgment reinforces the principle that inconsistencies in a dying declaration can raise doubts about its veracity, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondents. The Court emphasized that the dying declaration, being inconsistent and lacking proper certification of the deceased’s mental fitness, did not inspire confidence. The judgment underscores the importance of a credible and consistent dying declaration for a conviction and reinforces the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in such cases.