Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Based on Dying Declaration in Murder Case: Abrar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010)

Date of the Judgment: 16th December 2010

Citation: Not Available in the provided text.

Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi, J., P. Sathasivam, J., and Chandra Mauli Kr. Prasad, J.

Can minor inconsistencies in dying declarations undermine a murder conviction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Abrar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. This case revolves around the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations in a murder trial, specifically when multiple such declarations contain minor discrepancies. The bench consisted of Justices Harjit Singh Bedi, P. Sathasivam, and Chandra Mauli Kr. Prasad, with the judgment authored by Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.

Case Background

On April 3, 1979, at approximately 9:30 PM, Mohd. Ashfaq, an advocate, was returning home in Ghazipur when he encountered four individuals: Mukhtar, Abrar, Mateen, and Usman. These men were allegedly armed with country-made pistols. According to the prosecution, Ashfaq recognized them in the light of his torch. Fearing danger, he attempted to flee towards his house, raising an alarm. Abrar, the appellant, allegedly fired at Ashfaq from behind. The alarm attracted witnesses, Muzur, Durga Ram, and Bissu, who reportedly saw the shooting. The prosecution contended that the attack was a result of prior enmity and litigation between Ashfaq and the accused, Mukhtar and Abrar.

Ashfaq was immediately taken to the District Hospital in Ghazipur, where Dr. S.N. Pandey, on emergency duty, noted multiple gunshot injuries on his back. Ram Singh, Ashfaq’s junior advocate, arrived at the hospital at 9:45 PM. Ashfaq dictated a report to him, which was then taken to the police station, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A memo was also received from Dr. S.N. Pandey about Ashfaq’s admission. Sub-Inspector Ram Hit Shukla reached the hospital at 10:50 PM and recorded another statement from Ashfaq. A third dying declaration was recorded by Tahsildar, Vir Bahadur Prasad, at 11:50 PM, after the doctor certified that Ashfaq was fit to make a statement. Ashfaq succumbed to his injuries the following day in a Varanasi hospital. Consequently, a case under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against the accused. A post-mortem examination confirmed the gunshot injuries and revealed that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage resulting from abdominal injuries.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted all the accused, observing that the two eyewitnesses had turned hostile, and the three dying declarations had discrepancies. The trial court deemed the murder a “blind one” due to these inconsistencies and acquitted the accused. The State Government appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision. The High Court held that the discrepancies were minor and could occur in any statement. The High Court upheld the acquittal of Mukhtar, Mateen, and Usman, as no direct role was assigned to them in the dying declarations. However, it convicted Abrar, the appellant, based on the dying declarations which attributed the fatal shot to him. Abrar was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for murder. The section states:

“302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The case also touches upon the evidentiary value of dying declarations. Dying declarations are statements made by a person who is about to die, explaining the circumstances of their death. These are considered relevant and admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The court also considered Section 34 of the IPC which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

“34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Abrar):

• The primary argument was that the two eyewitnesses turned hostile, leaving only the three dying declarations as evidence.
• The appellant argued that these dying declarations were inconsistent in material aspects and therefore, unreliable.
• It was argued that it was not possible for the deceased to identify the assailants as there was no evidence of a torch or electric light at the scene.

State’s Arguments:

• The State contended that the dying declarations were consistent in naming all four accused.
• The State argued that the High Court had already given the benefit of doubt to three accused since no shot was attributed to them.
• The State emphasized that the dying declaration recorded by the Tahsildar was credible, as it was recorded after the doctor certified the victim’s fitness to make a statement.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The defense innovatively focused on the discrepancies in the dying declarations, arguing that these inconsistencies rendered the declarations unreliable. This strategy aimed to exploit the inconsistencies to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in convicting the appellant based on the dying declarations, despite the discrepancies and the fact that the eyewitnesses turned hostile?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

Legal Provisions:

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

Cases:

No specific cases were mentioned in the provided text.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court considered the Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)* to determine the punishment for the accused. The court also considered Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)* in the context of common intention of the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the consistency in the dying declarations, the credibility of the Tahsildar’s declaration, and the prompt lodging of the FIR. The court emphasized that minor discrepancies are normal in such situations and should not invalidate the entire evidence. The court also took into consideration the motive and the fact that the deceased was an educated person who would likely carry a torch.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the argument that the discrepancies in the dying declarations should invalidate them. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that minor discrepancies are normal and do not undermine the reliability of the declarations. The court emphasized that all three declarations were consistent in naming the accused. The court also considered the argument that there was no light source for identification, but countered this by noting the deceased was educated and likely carried a torch, and that the incident occurred in a district headquarters with street lights. The court found no reason to doubt the dying declaration recorded by the Tahsildar, which was made after a doctor certified the victim’s fitness to make a statement.

The court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The dying declarations were unanimous in naming all the accused.
• The discrepancies were minor and insignificant.
• The Tahsildar’s declaration was credible, as it was recorded after the doctor certified the victim’s fitness.
• The FIR was lodged promptly.
• There was a motive for the crime.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It must be borne in mind that all three dying declarations, the first one which formed the basis of the FIR, the second recorded by the ASI as a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and a third recorded by the Tahsildar are unanimous as all the accused find mention therein.”

“To our mind, however, these are so insignificant that they call for no discussion. It is also clear from the evidence that the injured had been in great pain and if there were minor discrepancies inter-se the three dying declarations, they were to be accepted as something normal.”

“We, particularly, notice that the dying declaration had recorded by the Tahsildar after the Doctor had certified the victim as fit to make a statement. The doctor also appeared in the witness box to support the statement of the Tahsildar.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Dying declarations are crucial evidence in criminal cases, especially when eyewitnesses turn hostile.
• Minor discrepancies in dying declarations do not necessarily invalidate them if the core facts remain consistent.
• A dying declaration recorded by a competent authority after medical certification holds significant evidentiary value.
• Prompt lodging of an FIR strengthens the prosecution’s case.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in the provided text.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that minor discrepancies in dying declarations do not render them unreliable if the core facts, such as the identification of the accused, remain consistent. This case reinforces the principle that a dying declaration, especially one recorded by a competent authority after medical certification, holds significant evidentiary value. There was no change in the previous position of law; the court reaffirmed the existing legal principles regarding dying declarations.

Conclusion

In Abrar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to convict the appellant based on dying declarations, despite minor discrepancies and hostile eyewitnesses. The court emphasized the consistency of the declarations, the credibility of the Tahsildar’s statement, and the prompt lodging of the FIR. This judgment underscores the importance of dying declarations as reliable evidence in criminal cases and clarifies that minor inconsistencies do not undermine their evidentiary value.