Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case Based on Dying Declaration

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 4, 2019

Citation: Not Available in the provided text.

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and K.M. Joseph, J.

Can a conviction for murder be solely based on a dying declaration, especially when there are multiple conflicting statements from the deceased? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Jagbir Singh vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi). This case revolves around the tragic death of a woman who suffered fatal burn injuries, and the court’s analysis of her statements made before her death. The court had to evaluate the reliability of these statements and determine if they could form the basis of a conviction. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The case involves the death of Santosh, who was married to the appellant, Jagbir Singh, in 1999. Initially, Jagbir was unemployed, but later secured a job with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Santosh continued to live with her mother, Chhoto Devi, as Jagbir was unable to take her with him due to his job. The prosecution alleged that Jagbir harassed Santosh and had an affair with his brother’s wife. A Panchayat was held, and a settlement was reached. After four years, Jagbir was transferred to Delhi, and he, along with Santosh, began living with Santosh’s mother. Despite this, Jagbir allegedly continued his affair. On January 23, 2008, Santosh’s mother went to another daughter’s home. The next day, on January 24, 2008, around 6:00 PM, Jagbir, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, poured kerosene on Santosh and himself, and then set her ablaze. Both were taken to the hospital.

Initially, Santosh gave a statement that did not implicate Jagbir. However, on January 27, 2008, she made a dying declaration accusing Jagbir of pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. Based on this, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which was later converted to Section 302 of the IPC after Santosh succumbed to her injuries. Jagbir was also charged under Section 506 of the IPC for threatening Santosh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Jagbir under Sections 302 and 506 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and two years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively, with both sentences running concurrently. The Trial Court considered two dying declarations, one on 24.01.2008 and another on 27.01.2008. The court noted that the first statement on 24.01.2008 was recorded in the MLC, stating that the burns were due to an accidental fire from a leaking petrol tank when her husband was lighting a matchstick. The court also noted that the deceased was unable to explain the kerosene smell from her body. The Trial Court rejected the defense’s claim that the dying declaration on 27.01.2008 was unreliable because it was long and was recorded without a doctor’s certificate of fitness. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing Jagbir’s appeal.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevance of statements made by a person who has died, particularly when such statements relate to the cause of their death. The section states:

“Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: (1) When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.”

The Supreme Court also discusses the principles governing the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, drawing from various precedents. The court emphasizes that while a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, it must be scrutinized carefully to ensure it is truthful, voluntary, and not a result of tutoring or imagination.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Multiple Dying Declarations: The appellant argued that there were three dying declarations. The first two, given by the deceased, did not implicate him, attributing the fire to an accident caused by his lighting a “biri” and a petrol leak from the motorcycle.
• Tutoring and Conspiracy: The appellant contended that the third dying declaration, which implicated him, was a result of tutoring and prompting by PW1, the husband of the deceased’s sister, who allegedly wanted to deprive him of property rights. PW1 had called the police to record the statement, not the hospital authorities.
• Self-Inflicted Burns: The appellant argued that the case of homicide was inconsistent with the fact that he also suffered 40% burn injuries.
• Statement of Police Constable: The appellant referred to the statement of a police constable that the husband was smoking a “biri” inside the room and the lid of the petrol tank was open, causing the fire.

State’s Arguments:

• Single Dying Declaration: The State argued that only the third statement on 27.01.2008 should be considered a true dying declaration, and the earlier statements were not reliable.
• Truthfulness of Declaration: The State contended that the third dying declaration was believable and not a result of tutoring.
• Presence of Kerosene: The State highlighted the presence of kerosene, which was found on the clothes and at the scene, and the fact that the deceased was unable to explain the smell of kerosene in her initial statements.
• Witness Testimony: The State relied on the testimony of PWs 1 and 7, who witnessed the recording of the dying declaration, and the evidence of PW29, the Investigating Officer.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the dying declaration dated 27.01.2008 is reliable and can be the basis for conviction.
2. Whether the earlier statements made by the deceased can be considered as dying declarations and if so, how to reconcile the inconsistencies.
3. Whether the presence of kerosene and the circumstances surrounding the incident support the prosecution’s case.

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:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1999 SC 3062]*: The Court used this case to differentiate between English and Indian law on dying declarations, emphasizing that under Indian law, the declarant’s expectation of death is not a prerequisite for admissibility.
• Paniben (Smt) v. State of Gujarat [(1992) 2 SCC 474]*: This case was used to summarize the principles governing dying declarations, particularly that a truthful and voluntary declaration can be the sole basis for conviction.
• Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1993) 2 SCC 684]*: The Court relied on this case to highlight the special sanctity of a dying declaration, which can be sufficient for conviction if trustworthy.
• Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P. [(2004) 9 SCC 713]*: This case was distinguished, as it involved a situation where the court did not act upon the second dying declaration due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, unlike the present case.
• Sayarabano Alias Sultanabegum v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 562]*: The court distinguished this case by noting that in the said case, there was other evidence to support the second dying declaration.
• Amol Singh v. State of M.P. [(2008) 5 SCC 468]*: The Court used this case to emphasize that reliability, not plurality, is key in evaluating dying declarations.
• Heeralal v. State of M.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 671]*: This case was referred to, to show that discrepancies in dying declarations can lead to the rejection of a conviction.
• Lakhan v. State of M.P. [(2010) 8 SCC 514]*: The Court used this case to summarize the law on dying declarations, emphasizing that a reliable declaration can be the sole basis for conviction.
• Sher Singh v. State of Punjab [(2008) 4 SCC 265]*: This case was used to show that a first dying declaration made under threat can be disregarded in favor of a subsequent, more reliable declaration.
• Laxman v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 6 SCC 710]*: The Court relied on this case to state that the absence of a doctor’s certificate is not fatal if the court is satisfied that the declaration is voluntary and truthful.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Detailed Narrative: The dying declaration of 27.01.2008 was a detailed and graphic account of the events, which included the specific actions of the appellant, the presence of kerosene, and the sequence of events leading to the fire.
• Corroborating Evidence: The presence of kerosene was confirmed by the smell, the residue on the clothes, and the presence of a kerosene can at the scene. The testimony of PW24, the neighbor, also corroborated the deceased’s account of how he broke into the house.
• Rejection of Accidental Fire Theory: The court rejected the theory of an accidental fire due to a petrol leak, as there was no evidence of petrol and the deceased herself could not explain the kerosene smell in her earlier statements.
• Unreliability of Earlier Statements: The court found that the earlier statements were made under the influence of the appellant’s presence and threat, and therefore, they were not reliable.
• Motive: The deceased’s statement about the appellant’s illicit relationship with his sister-in-law provided a motive for the crime.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be truthful and voluntary.
• The court must carefully scrutinize dying declarations, especially when there are multiple declarations, to ensure they are not the result of tutoring, prompting, or imagination.
• The presence of corroborating evidence, such as the presence of kerosene in this case, can strengthen the reliability of a dying declaration.
• Statements made under threat or influence may be deemed unreliable.

Directions

Since, appellant has been released on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration, if found to be truthful, voluntary, and consistent with other evidence, can be the sole basis for conviction, even if there are multiple, conflicting declarations. This case reinforces the principle that the court must carefully evaluate all the circumstances surrounding the making of a dying declaration, including the physical and mental condition of the declarant, the presence of any external influences, and the consistency of the declaration with other evidence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Jagbir Singh, emphasizing the reliability of the dying declaration made on 27.01.2008. The court found that the deceased’s detailed account of the incident, supported by corroborating evidence, was sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments regarding the earlier statements, the conspiracy theory, and the accidental fire, thereby affirming the conviction under Sections 302 and 506 of the IPC.