Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Based on Magistrate’s Dying Declaration in Murder Case

Date of the Judgment: 01 February 2022

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B. V. Nagarathna, J.

Can a conviction for murder be upheld based on a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate, especially when there are multiple dying declarations with conflicting accounts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the death of a woman who was set on fire. The core issue revolved around the admissibility and reliability of two dying declarations given by the deceased, one to a police officer and another to a Magistrate. The bench comprised Justices M. R. Shah and B. V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case began with a First Information Report (FIR) filed by PW-1 Bengali Babu, stating that on December 20, 2011, at approximately 2:30 PM, he received a call from Radha, the daughter of the deceased, informing him that her mother had been burned. Upon reaching the hospital, he learned that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) was recording the deceased’s statement. According to the deceased’s daughter, the deceased had stated that her in-laws had demanded money, and when she refused, they assaulted her, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire using a matchstick. The police investigation followed, leading to a charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The trial court, after examining ten prosecution witnesses (one of whom turned hostile), and considering two dying declarations, convicted the accused. The court relied on the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate on December 22, 2011, and rejected the defense’s argument that the deceased had set herself on fire. The accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The accused appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which acquitted them. The High Court primarily based its decision on the existence of two dying declarations with a two-day gap between them. The High Court disbelieved both dying declarations, suggesting that the deceased might have poured kerosene on herself due to pressure and fear after being chased by the accused.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with 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.”
• Dying Declaration: A statement made by a person who is about to die, concerning the cause of their death, is admissible as evidence in court.

The legal framework also includes the evidentiary value of dying declarations, particularly those recorded by a Magistrate, and the circumstances under which such declarations can be relied upon for conviction.

Arguments

Arguments by the State:

• The State argued that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused, especially considering the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate.
• The dying declaration recorded by a competent Magistrate holds higher evidentiary value than a statement recorded by a police officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).
• The High Court’s observation that multiple dying declarations cannot be relied upon without corroborative evidence is contrary to established law. The State cited several cases, including Amol Singh V. State of M.P., (2008) 5 SCC 468, Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & Anr. V. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 2 SCC 684, and Munnu Raja & Anr. V. State of M.P., (1976) 3 SCC 104, to support the argument that a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration if it is deemed true and voluntary.
• The High Court did not doubt the credibility or impartiality of the Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration on 22.12.2011.

Arguments by the Accused:

• The accused contended that the High Court rightly acquitted them due to the presence of multiple, inconsistent dying declarations.
• The first dying declaration, recorded by the police officer on 20.12.2011, indicated that the deceased committed suicide out of fear of her father-in-law. The role assigned to the father-in-law was limited to chasing her, not burning her.
• The second dying declaration, recorded by the Magistrate, was a “somersault” where the deceased implicated all family members.
• The deceased was mentally weak, and out of fear of being beaten by her father-in-law, she committed suicide by setting herself on fire.

The State argued that the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate should be given more weight, while the accused argued that the inconsistencies between the two dying declarations made both unreliable.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate on 22.12.2011 is to be believed.
2. Whether, on the basis of such dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate/SDM, the accused can be convicted.
3. Whether a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration without corroborative evidence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the Credibility of Dying Declarations Recorded by a Magistrate:

• Laxman V. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710: The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate, being a disinterested and responsible officer, is credible unless there is evidence of bias or fabrication.
• Jagbir Singh V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 8 SCC 779: The Supreme Court clarified that multiple dying declarations should be carefully examined, and the court must assess the circumstances surrounding each declaration. The court also held that if the incriminatory dying declaration brings out the truthful position, it can be acted upon.
• Ravi Chander & Ors. V. State of Punjab (1998) 9 SCC 303: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of examining the entirety of the material and circumstances surrounding the making of different dying declarations.
• Harjit Kaur V. State of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545: The Supreme Court reiterated that multiple dying declarations do not automatically lead to rejection of all declarations.
• Koli Chunilal Savji & Anr. V. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562: The Supreme Court held that the case must be decided on the facts of each case and the court must examine the material on record.
• Vikas & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra (2008) 2 SCC 516: The Supreme Court stated that the court will not be relieved of its duty to carefully examine the entirety of the material on record.

On Conviction Based Solely on Dying Declaration:

• Munnu Raja & Anr. V. State of M.P., (1976) 3 SCC 104: The Supreme Court held that a conviction can be based on a dying declaration without corroboration if the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary.
• Paniben (Smt) V. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2 SCC 474: The Supreme Court reiterated that there is no rule of law or prudence requiring corroboration for a dying declaration.
• State of Uttar Pradesh V. Ram Sagar Yadav & Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 552: The Supreme Court stated that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it is found to be true and voluntary.
• Ramawati Devi V. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 211: The Supreme Court held that if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction on it, without corroboration.
• Kushal Rao V. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22: The Supreme Court laid down principles for accepting a dying declaration without corroboration, emphasizing the need to consider the circumstances in which the declaration was made.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Laxman V. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710* to support the credibility of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate.
• The Court applied the principles laid down in Jagbir Singh V. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 8 SCC 779* regarding the examination of multiple dying declarations.
• The Court cited Munnu Raja & Anr. V. State of M.P., (1976) 3 SCC 104* and Kushal Rao V. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22* to emphasize that a conviction can be based on a dying declaration without corroboration if it is found to be true and voluntary.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the credibility of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate and the inconsistencies between the two dying declarations when juxtaposed with the medical evidence. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate was a disinterested and responsible officer, and there was no evidence of bias or malice. The medical evidence contradicted the first dying declaration, which suggested the deceased had set herself on fire. The injuries found on the deceased’s body were more consistent with someone pouring kerosene on her from behind.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal principles, with a slightly higher emphasis on legal considerations.

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate holds significant evidentiary value and can be the sole basis for conviction if deemed true and voluntary.
• Multiple dying declarations do not automatically invalidate each other; each must be carefully examined for consistency and credibility.
• Medical evidence plays a crucial role in assessing the reliability of a dying declaration.
• The court’s reasoning emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the making of a dying declaration.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned court or jail authority to undergo life imprisonment forthwith.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the established legal position that a dying declaration, especially when recorded by a Magistrate, can be a strong piece of evidence. The judgment also clarifies that multiple dying declarations do not automatically invalidate each other, and the court must carefully examine each declaration in light of the surrounding circumstances and medical evidence. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration if it is true and voluntary, particularly when recorded by a Magistrate, and is consistent with medical evidence. This judgment does not introduce a new position of law but reaffirms the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s acquittal and restoring the Trial Court’s conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court emphasized the reliability of the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, which was consistent with medical evidence, and reiterated that a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration if it is true and voluntary. This judgment underscores the importance of dying declarations in criminal cases and provides clarity on the evaluation of multiple such declarations.