Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Kerosene Burning Case Based on Dying Declaration: Madan @ Madhu Patekar vs. The State of Maharashtra (2018) INSC 84 (6 February 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 6 February 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 84
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
Can a dying declaration alone be the basis for conviction in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving a gruesome act of kerosene burning. The Court upheld the conviction of the accused, relying significantly on the dying declarations of the deceased. This judgment highlights the importance of dying declarations as evidence in criminal trials. The bench consisted of Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, with the judgment authored by Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Latabai, who had an illicit relationship with the accused, Madan @ Madhu Patekar. On December 13, 1991, Latabai refused to cook for Madan. Enraged, Madan poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze. Hearing Latabai’s cries, neighbors Meerabai and Satyabhamabai (PW 7) rushed to help, and Madan also joined them in extinguishing the fire. In the commotion, Madan fled the scene. Latabai was taken to the Civil Hospital, Nashik, where Madan was also admitted.

Special Judicial Magistrate Jayaprakash Chavan (PW1) recorded Latabai’s dying declaration, as well as a statement from Madan. On the same day, Police Head Constable Nivrutti Baburao Godhade (PW12) also recorded Latabai’s dying declaration. Latabai succumbed to her injuries on December 16, 1991. Madan was arrested on January 19, 1992. Postmortem was conducted, and a chemical examiner’s report was obtained. Madan was subsequently charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court conducted a full trial, convicting Madan under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100. Madan appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Madan caused Latabai’s death by burning her. Madan then appealed to the Supreme Court against these concurrent findings.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of statements made by a person who has died. Specifically, it states that:

“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 it relates to cause of death.—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. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.”

The Court also referred to Sections 6 and 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deal with the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction and facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The prosecution failed to prove that Madan poured kerosene on Latabai.
• There were no eyewitnesses to the incident.
• Madan himself sustained 40% burn injuries while trying to save Latabai.
• Latabai’s dying declarations were not voluntary and were fabricated to implicate Madan.
• The courts below failed to consider the doubts in the prosecution’s case, such as how a person with 86% burn injuries could give a dying declaration.

State’s Arguments:

• The dying declarations are the basis for the conviction.
• The prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
• The dying declarations were consistent and reliable.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was to question the authenticity of the dying declaration based on the extent of burn injuries sustained by the deceased and that he himself was injured trying to save her.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the dying declarations of the deceased were reliable and could form the sole basis for the conviction of the accused.

The sub-issue was whether the dying declarations were voluntarily made and without any tutoring or prompting.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

Dying Declaration:

• King v. Woodcock, (1789) 168 ER 352: This case established the importance of dying declarations as evidence. The Court quoted that dying declarations are 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 mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth.”
• Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1998) 4 SCC 517: This case emphasizes that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence in the court.
• Suresh Chandra Jana & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal &Ors., 2017 (8) SCALE 697: This case also supports the view that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction.
• Atbir Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi , 2010 (9) SCC 1: This case highlights the need for caution when relying solely on a dying declaration.
• Paniben Vs. State of Gujarat , 1992 (2) SCC 474: This case states that if a dying declaration creates suspicion, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.
• Panneerselvam Vs. State of Tamilnadu , 2008 (17) SCC 190: This case also emphasizes the need for a cautious approach when relying on dying declarations.

Concurrent Findings:

• Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217: This case states that a concurrent finding of fact cannot be reopened in an appeal unless it is based on no evidence, is perverse, is based on inadmissible evidence, or overlooks vital evidence.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Deals with the admissibility of statements made by a person who has died, particularly regarding the cause of their death.
• Sections 6 and 7 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Deal with the relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction and facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.

Authority Table

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the reliability and consistency of the two dying declarations given by Latabai. The Court noted that both declarations clearly implicated Madan as the perpetrator of the crime. The fact that the Special Executive Magistrate recorded one of the declarations after obtaining a fitness certificate from the doctor added to its credibility. The Court also considered the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court, which had also found the dying declarations to be reliable. The Court emphasized that concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed unless they fall under specific exceptions, none of which were applicable in this case. The Court also noted that the dying declarations were consistent with each other and were made without any tutoring or prompting. The Court also noted that the dying declarations were given by the deceased when she was in a fit state of mind.

The Court also highlighted that the dying declaration is an exception to the rule against admissibility of hearsay evidence and that the rule of admissibility of dying declaration is no more res integra.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the appellant’s arguments that the dying declarations were not voluntary and were fabricated. The Court found that the declarations were consistent and reliable. The Court also held that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the dying declarations were recorded by the Special Executive Magistrate after obtaining due permission from the doctor, and the other dying declaration recorded by the Constable was also consistent in respect of revelations and points at the guilt of the accused.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“It is evident from the dying declarations that the deceased on the previous night i.e. on the date of incident, had a quarrel with the accused over cooking of meals and the annoyed appellant poured kerosene and set her on fire with matchstick.”

“Both the dying declarations are consistent and in clear terms points at the guilt of the accused – appellant that he has set the lady on fire resulting in her death.”

“In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to say that the dying declaration of the deceased in the instant case can form the sole basis for conviction of the accused—appellant.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Dying declarations can be the sole basis for conviction if they are reliable, consistent, and made voluntarily.
• Courts must be cautious when relying on dying declarations and must ensure that they inspire confidence.
• Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts will not be disturbed unless they fall under specific exceptions.
• The dying declarations recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate after obtaining due permission from the doctor, adds credibility to the dying declaration.

This judgment reinforces the importance of dying declarations as evidence in criminal trials and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case. However, it noted that it was up to the government to consider the appellant’s request for remission.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the well-established principle that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is reliable and inspires confidence in the court. The judgment also reiterates that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed unless they fall under specific exceptions. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Madan @ Madhu Patekar, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court primarily relied on the dying declarations of the deceased, Latabai, which were found to be reliable and consistent. The judgment underscores the significance of dying declarations as evidence in criminal cases and reinforces the principle that such declarations can form the sole basis for conviction if they meet the necessary criteria. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Category

• Parent Category: Criminal Law
• Child Category: Murder
• Child Category: Dying Declaration
• Child Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Parent Category: Indian Evidence Act, 1872
• Child Category: Section 32, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

FAQ

Q: What is a dying declaration?
A: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is about to die, explaining the cause or circumstances of their death. It is considered an exception to the hearsay rule in court.

Q: Can a dying declaration be the only evidence used to convict someone?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has stated that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if the court finds it reliable, consistent, and voluntarily made.

Q: What makes a dying declaration reliable?
A: A dying declaration is considered reliable if it is made by a person who is in a fit state of mind, without any tutoring or prompting, and if it is consistent with the facts of the case. If recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate after obtaining due permission from the doctor, it adds credibility to the dying declaration.

Q: What should you do if you are asked to record a dying declaration?
A: If you are a Magistrate or a Police Officer, you should ensure that the person making the declaration is in a fit state of mind, and record the statement accurately and without any prompting. You should also obtain a fitness certificate from the doctor before recording the statement.

Q: What does it mean if the High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent findings?
A: Concurrent findings mean that both the lower courts have agreed on the facts of the case. The Supreme Court is usually reluctant to interfere with such findings unless there is a significant error or injustice.