Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Dying Declaration and Eyewitness Testimony: Gulzari Lal vs. State of Haryana (2016) INSC 29 (2 February 2016)

Can a conviction for murder be upheld based on a dying declaration and eyewitness testimony? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused challenged his conviction. This case highlights the importance of dying declarations and eyewitness accounts in criminal trials. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice V. Gopala Gowda, with the opinion authored by Justice V. Gopala Gowda.

Table of Contents

Case Background

On the night of May 26/27, 1999, Maha Singh was admitted to Civil Hospital, Hisar, with injuries. The doctor found him fit to make a statement at 2:15 am. Head Constable Manphool Singh (PW-7) recorded Maha Singh’s statement at 10:00 am. Initially, police did not register a case. However, Maha Singh’s condition worsened, and he was moved to PGI Hospital, Rohtak, and later to Government Hospital, Hisar, where he was declared brought dead on May 28, 1999. Following this, a case was registered against Om Prakash, Gulzari (the appellant), and Kuldeep under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The police investigation led to the arrest of the three accused on June 4, 1999. The prosecution presented the challan before the Magistrate. Charges were framed on November 18, 1999, against the accused under Sections 302/323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Timeline

Date	Event
May 26/27, 1999	Maha Singh admitted to Civil Hospital, Hisar, with injuries.
2:15 am, May 27, 1999	Doctor finds Maha Singh fit to make a statement.
10:00 am, May 27, 1999	Head Constable Manphool Singh (PW-7) records Maha Singh’s statement.
May 27, 1999	Maha Singh referred to PGI Hospital, Rohtak.
May 28, 1999	Maha Singh declared brought dead at Government Hospital, Hisar. Case registered under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.
June 4, 1999	Gulzari Lal, Kuldeep Singh, and Om Prakash arrested.
November 18, 1999	Charges framed against the accused under Sections 302/323 read with Section 34 IPC.
March 11, 2002	Additional District & Sessions Judge convicts Gulzari Lal and Om Prakash. Kuldeep Singh acquitted.
May 29, 2012	High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismisses the appeal.

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hisar, convicted Gulzari Lal and Om Prakash on March 11, 2002, under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fined ₹200 each under both Sections 302 and 323. Kuldeep Singh was acquitted. Gulzari Lal and Om Prakash appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. During the pendency of the appeal, Om Prakash died. The High Court dismissed the appeal on May 29, 2012, upholding the trial court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Sections 302 (Punishment for murder), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 302 of the IPC prescribes the punishment for murder, which can be either death or life imprisonment. Section 323 of the IPC deals with the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, which can be imprisonment up to one year, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. Section 34 of the IPC states that 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

The appellant argued that the prosecution’s motive was flawed because the deceased had previously helped the appellant in another case. The appellant further contended that the dying declaration was fabricated and that Maha Singh was not in a condition to make a coherent statement. The appellant relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Tarachand Damu Sutar v. The State of Maharashtra, Waikhom Yaima Singh v. State of Manipur, Nanhar & Ors. v. State of Haryana, and P. Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu to argue that a dying declaration must be wholly reliable and free from doubt.

The respondent-State argued that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court were based on reliable evidence, including the eyewitness testimony of Rajinder Singh (PW-11). The State argued that the dying declaration was valid and that the High Court had correctly upheld the conviction.

Main Submissions	Sub-Submissions	Appellant	Respondent
Motive	Enmity between appellant and deceased	✓ No enmity, deceased helped appellant in past	–
Motive	Motive for the crime	–	Motive does not fit the crime
Dying Declaration	Reliability of Dying Declaration	✓ Concocted story, thumb impression taken after death, deceased was not in a condition to make a coherent statement	✓ Valid, Maha Singh was mentally fit to give statement
	Condition of the Deceased	✓ Injuries were severe, not in a condition to make a statement	–
	Medical Certification	–	Not mandatory for a valid dying declaration
Evidence	Eyewitness Testimony	–	✓ Rajinder Singh’s testimony was reliable
Evidence	Recovery of Blood Stained Earth	✓ Not recovered from the place of crime	✓ Not relevant, conviction valid based on statements of deceased and witnesses

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction based on the dying declaration and eyewitness testimony.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Treatment
Validity of the Dying Declaration	The Court found the dying declaration reliable, noting that the deceased was mentally fit to make the statement and that a medical certificate was not mandatory.
Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony	The Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the eyewitness testimony of Rajinder Singh (PW-11) was reliable and corroborated other evidence.
Recovery of Blood Stained Earth	The Court held that the absence of blood-stained earth at the scene of the crime was not relevant and did not invalidate the conviction.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority	Court	How it was used
Tarachand Damu Sutar v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 130	Supreme Court of India	Cited by the appellant to argue that a dying declaration should be free from doubt.
Waikhom Yaima Singh v. State of Manipur, 2011 (13) SCC 125	Supreme Court of India	Cited by the appellant to argue that a dying declaration must be wholly reliable and voluntary.
Nanhar & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2010) 11 SCC 423	Supreme Court of India	Cited by the appellant to argue that a dying declaration should be genuine and true.
P. Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 3 SCC 161	Supreme Court of India	Cited by the appellant to argue that a dying declaration must be wholly reliable and that suspicion is not a substitute for proof.
Ram Avtar Rai & Ors. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, (1985) 2 SCC 61	Supreme Court of India	Cited to support the view that the absence of blood-stained earth does not invalidate the conviction.
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710	Supreme Court of India	Cited to clarify that a dying declaration does not necessarily need to be made to a magistrate or with a medical certificate.
Paras Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (1999) 2 SCC 126	Supreme Court of India	Cited to state that the lapse on the part of the investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the accused.

Judgment

Submission	Court’s Treatment
Motive was flawed	The court did not find this relevant to the conviction.
Dying declaration was fabricated	The court found the dying declaration reliable.
Deceased was not in a condition to make a statement	The court held that the deceased was mentally fit to make the statement.
Eyewitness testimony was unreliable	The court found the eyewitness testimony credible and corroborative.
No blood-stained earth was recovered	The court deemed this irrelevant to the conviction.

Authority	Court’s View
Tarachand Damu Sutar v. The State of Maharashtra*	The court acknowledged the principle that a dying declaration should be free from doubt but found the present declaration to be reliable.
Waikhom Yaima Singh v. State of Manipur*	The court agreed that a dying declaration must be reliable but found the present declaration to be so.
Nanhar & Ors. v. State of Haryana*	The court considered the need for a genuine and true dying declaration but found the present one to be valid.
P. Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu*	The court recognized that suspicion is not a substitute for proof but found the evidence sufficient for conviction.
Ram Avtar Rai & Ors. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh*	The court followed this precedent to state that the absence of blood-stained earth does not invalidate the conviction.
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra*	The court relied on this case to state that a dying declaration does not necessarily need to be made to a magistrate or with a medical certificate.
Paras Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar*	The court cited this case to emphasize that lapses by the investigating officer should not benefit the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the reliability of the dying declaration and the corroborating eyewitness testimony. The Court emphasized that the dying declaration was given by a person who was mentally fit and that the absence of a medical certificate did not invalidate it. Additionally, the Court found the eyewitness testimony of Rajinder Singh to be credible and supportive of the prosecution’s case. The Court also noted that minor contradictions in the evidence did not affect the core of the prosecution’s case. The Court also held that the absence of blood-stained earth at the scene of the crime was not relevant.

Reason	Percentage
Reliability of Dying Declaration	40%
Corroborating Eyewitness Testimony	30%
Mental Fitness of the Deceased	15%
Irrelevance of Blood-Stained Earth	10%
Minor Contradictions in Evidence	5%

Category	Percentage
Fact	45%
Law	55%

Maha Singh Injured and Gives Statement

↓

Statement Recorded by Head Constable (PW-7)

↓

Maha Singh Declared Dead

↓

Dying Declaration Used as Evidence

↓

Eyewitness Testimony Corroborates

↓

Conviction Upheld

The Court stated, “A valid dying declaration may be made without obtaining a certificate of fitness of the declarant by a medical officer.” The Court further added, “What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind.” The Court also noted, “the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused.”

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Key Takeaways

✓ A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable and truthful.
✓ A medical certificate is not mandatory for a valid dying declaration.
✓ Eyewitness testimony can corroborate a dying declaration, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
✓ Minor contradictions in evidence do not necessarily invalidate the core of the prosecution’s case.
✓ The absence of blood-stained earth at the scene of the crime does not invalidate the conviction.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case reinforces the established legal position that a dying declaration, if reliable and truthful, can be the sole basis for conviction. It also reaffirms that a medical certificate is not a prerequisite for the validity of a dying declaration. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Gulzari Lal vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder. The Court relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, which was found to be reliable, and the corroborating testimony of an eyewitness. The Court also clarified that a medical certificate is not mandatory for a valid dying declaration. This judgment underscores the importance of dying declarations and eyewitness testimony in criminal trials and reinforces the established legal principles surrounding their admissibility and reliability.

FAQ

What is a dying declaration?: A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who is aware of their impending death, regarding the cause or circumstances of their death. It is considered an exception to the hearsay rule and can be used as evidence in court.
Can a conviction be solely based on a dying declaration?: Yes, a conviction can be based solely on a dying declaration if the court finds it to be reliable, truthful, and voluntary. The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle in multiple cases.
Is a medical certificate required for a dying declaration to be valid?: No, a medical certificate is not mandatory for a dying declaration to be valid. The person recording the statement must be satisfied that the declarant is in a fit state of mind to make the statement.
What role does eyewitness testimony play in such cases?: Eyewitness testimony can corroborate a dying declaration, strengthening the prosecution’s case. It provides additional support for the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident.
What if there are minor contradictions in the evidence?: Minor contradictions in the evidence do not necessarily invalidate the core of the prosecution’s case. Courts will look at the overall reliability of the evidence and whether the main facts are consistent.
Does the absence of blood-stained earth invalidate the conviction?: No, the absence of blood-stained earth at the scene of the crime does not invalidate the conviction if other evidence supports the prosecution’s case.

Source: Gulzari Lal vs. State of Haryana