Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Gruesome Murder Case Based on Dying Declarations: Purshottam Chopra vs. State (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility and reliability of dying declarations in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Purshottam Chopra & Anr. vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi). [Judgment Date]: 07 January 2020

Date of the Judgment: 07 January 2020
Citation: Not Available in the source.
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of statements made by the deceased before death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a man was set ablaze. The Court examined the admissibility and reliability of these statements, known as dying declarations, in the context of a gruesome murder. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

On December 18, 1997, at approximately 3:00-3:15 PM, residents near Goverdhan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, were alerted by screams and smoke emanating from plot number 17. They discovered a man engulfed in flames and attempted to extinguish the fire. The Police Control Room (PCR) received a call about the incident at 3:28 PM. The injured man, later identified as Sher Singh, was transported to Safdarjung Hospital. Upon admission, Dr. Sushma (PW-8) prepared the Medico-Legal Case (MLC), where Sher Singh stated that Purshottam and Suresh (telwala) had threatened him, poured kerosene on him, and set him ablaze.

Simultaneously, SI Rajesh Kumar (PW-16) and Ct. Vijay Parkash (PW-13) reached the scene. SI Rajesh Kumar went to the hospital, where he obtained a statement from Sher Singh (Ex. PW-16/B), after Dr. Rajesh Verma (PW-17) certified that the patient was fit to make the statement. In this statement, Sher Singh detailed the events leading to his injuries, again naming Purshottam and Suresh as his assailants. He mentioned purchasing liquor from Suresh, who also had an oil depot, and stated that Suresh poured kerosene on him while Purshottam was present, before setting him on fire.

Following this, an FIR was registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Both Purshottam and Suresh were arrested later that night. The case was converted to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC after Sher Singh succumbed to his injuries on December 19, 1997. The post-mortem, conducted by Dr. Arvind (PW-14), confirmed that the cause of death was due to shock from 100% ante-mortem flame burns.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The case was tried in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, as Sessions Case No. 2 of 1998. The Trial Court convicted Purshottam and Suresh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, primarily relying on the dying declarations of Sher Singh. The High Court of Delhi upheld the conviction in Criminal Appeal Nos. 121 of 1999 and 139 of 1999, affirming the Trial Court’s decision. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder. The judgment also invokes Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The legal framework also includes the concept of “dying declaration” as an exception to the rule against hearsay, where a statement made by a person as to the cause of their death is admissible in court.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:
“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, 1860 states:
“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

Arguments by the Appellants:

• Reliability of Dying Declarations: The appellants argued that the dying declarations were unreliable due to several inconsistencies:
  • The deceased’s statement about consuming liquor was contradicted by the post-mortem report.
  • The deceased’s thumb impression on the dying declaration was doubtful given his 100% burns.
  • The police officer failed to call a Magistrate to record the dying declaration, despite having time.
  • The language used in the MLC (Ex. PW-8/A) was too formal for a person in critical condition.
  • The statement recorded by PW-16 (Ex. PW-16/B) was too detailed given the deceased’s deteriorating condition.
• Contradictory Statements: The appellants highlighted the testimony of PW-6 Rajesh, who stated that the deceased initially claimed self-immolation. They argued this should be considered the first dying declaration, contradicting the later statements.
• Lack of Corroboration: The appellants contended that the prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence and lacked corroboration of the dying declarations.
• Lack of Motive: The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove any motive for the crime.
• Impossibility of Escape: The appellants argued that it was impossible for them to escape the crime scene unnoticed in a crowded market.
• Physical Implausibility: Appellant No. 1 argued that being shorter than the deceased, it was unlikely he could have thrown kerosene on the deceased.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• Validity of Dying Declarations: The respondent argued that the dying declarations were consistent and reliable:
  • The MLC (Ex. PW-8/A) was recorded by Dr. Sushma (PW-8) immediately after the incident, where the deceased named the appellants.
  • The statement (Ex. PW-16/B) was recorded by SI Rajesh Kumar (PW-16) after the doctor certified the deceased was fit to make a statement.
  • The dying declarations were made without any possibility of tutoring or prompting.
• Rejection of Self-Immolation Theory: The respondent contended that the self-immolation theory was introduced in the cross-examination of PW-6 and was not supported by evidence.
• No Requirement of Magistrate: The respondent argued that there is no legal requirement that a dying declaration must be recorded by a Magistrate.
• Motive Not Essential: The respondent argued that the absence of a proven motive does not invalidate the prosecution’s case.
• Physical Evidence: The post-mortem report indicated that the skin on the dorsum of the hands was peeling, suggesting someone else poured kerosene on the deceased.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the dying declarations of the deceased, Sher Singh, were reliable and admissible as evidence.
2. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710: The Constitution Bench laid down the principles for the admissibility of dying declarations. The Court emphasized that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence and is made in a fit state of mind.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh, (2013) 14 SCC 159: This case clarified that the law does not prescribe who can record a dying declaration, nor is there a prescribed format. The person recording the declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind.
• Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 8 SCC 95: The Court accepted a dying declaration made by a person with 92% burn injuries, emphasizing that the extent of burns does not automatically invalidate a dying declaration.
• Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2015) 4 SCC 749: The Court accepted the statement of a victim with 100% burn injuries, holding that the extent of burns does not preclude the possibility of a valid dying declaration.
• State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur and Anr., AIR 1998 SC 2809: The Court disbelieved a dying declaration due to inconsistencies with medical evidence regarding the thumb impression of the deceased.
• Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2001 (4) SC 472: The Court emphasized the need for satisfaction about the trustworthiness of the dying declaration and the fitness of the declarant’s mind.
• Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1173: The Court found a dying declaration doubtful due to facts that could not have been in the knowledge of the deceased.
• Gopal Singh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., AIR 1972 SC 1557: The Court held that a dying declaration without complete names and addresses of the accused requires corroboration.
• Thurukanni Pompiah and Anr. v. State of Mysore, AIR 1965 SC 939: The Court stated that a dying declaration must be truthful and reliable and may form the sole basis of conviction, but if not wholly reliable, it requires corroboration.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Authorities Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Laxman v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 6 SCC 710]* to affirm that a dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence. The Court also followed State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh [(2013) 14 SCC 159]* and Bhagwan v. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 8 SCC 95]* to support that the person recording the dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind and that the degree of burns does not invalidate the dying declaration, respectively. The Court distinguished State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur and Anr. [AIR 1998 SC 2809]*, Uka Ram v. State of Rajasthan [JT 2001 (4) SC 472]*, Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab [AIR 1979 SC 1173]*, Gopal Singh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [AIR 1972 SC 1557]*, and Thurukanni Pompiah and Anr. v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 939]* on the grounds that the facts were different in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the consistency and reliability of the dying declarations made by Sher Singh. The Court emphasized that the statements were made voluntarily, without any external influence, and while the victim was in a fit state of mind. The fact that both the MLC (Ex. PW-8/A) and the statement recorded by SI Rajesh Kumar (Ex. PW-16/B) independently corroborated each other was a significant factor. The Court also noted the absence of any motive for the medical professionals or the police officer to fabricate the statements. The Court rejected the self-immolation theory based on the contradictions in the testimony of PW-6 Rajesh and the lack of supporting evidence. The Court also found no reason to doubt the thumb impression on Ex. PW-16/B, despite the severe burns, and the fact that the post-mortem report indicated that the skin on the dorsum of the hands was peeling, suggesting someone else poured kerosene on the deceased.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, particularly the theory of self-immolation, but rejected them due to lack of evidence and contradictions in the testimony of PW-6. The Court also considered the argument that the police officer should have called a Magistrate to record the dying declaration, but held that it is not mandatory, and the statement recorded by the police officer was reliable. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the dying declarations were voluntary, made in a fit state of mind, and consistent, thus forming a sound basis for conviction.

The Court emphasized that the statements made by the deceased were clear and consistent, and the circumstances surrounding their recording did not suggest any manipulation or fabrication. The Court also noted that the medical evidence supported the fact that the deceased was conscious and oriented when he made the statements.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The juristic theory regarding acceptability of a dying declaration is that such declaration is made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and when every hope of this world is gone, when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the man is induced by the most powerful consideration to speak only the truth.”
• “The law does not provide as to who could record dying declaration nor there is any prescribed format or procedure for the same but the person recording dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind and is capable of making the statement”
• “If after careful scrutiny, the Court finds the statement placed as dying declaration to be voluntary and also finds it coherent and consistent, there is no legal impediment in recording conviction on its basis even without corroboration.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case; the judgment was unanimous. The Court found no reason to convert the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the act of pouring kerosene and setting the victim on fire clearly indicated an intention to cause death.

The Court also rejected the argument that appellant No. 1 was not directly involved in the act of setting the victim on fire, as he was present and acted in furtherance of a common intention with appellant No. 2, thus making him equally liable under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind.
• The person recording a dying declaration must be satisfied that the declarant is in a fit state of mind, but a medical certificate is not always mandatory.
• The percentage of burns suffered by a victim does not, by itself, invalidate a dying declaration.
• A dying declaration does not necessarily have to be recorded by a Magistrate.
• The absence of a proven motive is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, especially when there is strong evidence of guilt.
• The court must scrutinize the dying declaration for its truthfulness and reliability, and if found to be consistent and voluntary, it can be acted upon without corroboration.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable, voluntary, and made in a fit state of mind. The Court reiterated that the law does not mandate that a dying declaration must be recorded by a Magistrate and that the percentage of burns suffered by a victim is not the sole determinant of the validity of a dying declaration. This judgment reinforces the established principles regarding the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, without making any significant changes in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of Purshottam and Suresh for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the dying declarations of Sher Singh were reliable and admissible, and that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores the importance of dying declarations as a form of evidence and reinforces the legal principles that govern their admissibility and reliability in criminal proceedings.

Category

• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Law
  • Dying Declaration
  • Murder
  • Common Intention
• Evidence Law
  • Admissibility of Evidence
  • Hearsay Evidence

FAQ

1. What is a dying declaration?

   A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is about to die, concerning the cause of their death or the circumstances surrounding it. This statement is considered an exception to the rule against hearsay and can be used as evidence in court.

2. Can a conviction be based solely on a dying declaration?

   Yes, a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration if the court finds it to be reliable, voluntary, and made while the declarant was in a fit state of mind. The court must be convinced of its truthfulness and consistency.

3. Does a dying declaration need to be recorded by a Magistrate?

   No, it is not mandatory for a dying declaration to be recorded by a Magistrate. Astatement recorded by a police officer or a medical professional can also be admissible, provided it meets the necessary criteria of reliability and voluntariness.

4. What factors are considered to determine the reliability of a dying declaration?

   Factors that are considered include the declarant’s mental state, the consistency of the statement, the voluntariness of the statement, and the absence of any external influence or tutoring. The court also looks for any contradictions or inconsistencies in the statement.

5. What if the person making the dying declaration has severe burns?

   The severity of burns does not automatically invalidate a dying declaration. If the person is conscious and able to make a coherent statement, the declaration can be considered valid, provided other criteria are met.

6. Is corroboration required for a dying declaration?

   While corroboration is not always mandatory, it can strengthen the credibility of the dying declaration. If the court finds the declaration to be credible and reliable, it can form the sole basis of conviction without corroboration.

7. What is the role of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in this case?

   Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. In this case, it was used to hold both appellants equally liable for the murder, even if only one of them directly set the victim on fire. The presence and participation of the other appellant in the act of pouring kerosene was sufficient to establish common intention.