Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 08 July 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 480

Judges: Surya Kant, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can discrepancies in witness testimonies, inconclusive forensic reports, and the absence of a doctor’s certification for a dying declaration undermine a murder conviction? The Supreme Court recently addressed this in a case where the accused was convicted for murder. The court examined the evidence, including eyewitness accounts, medical reports, and the recovery of a weapon, to determine if the conviction was justified. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

On June 20, 2004, Usha Bai (P.W.10) was overseeing the construction of a wall for her hut (Jhuggi) by Devi Singh @ Tillu and Tularam. Ahmad and his wife, Kanija Bi, objected to the construction. Soon, other accused persons, including the Appellant, Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma, arrived and started verbally abusing Usha Bai, Tillu, and Tularam. The situation escalated, and the accused physically assaulted Tillu. Tillu tried to escape into a nearby unoccupied Jhuggi belonging to Bhairav Shastri, locking the door from inside. However, the accused broke open the door, surrounded Tillu, and the Appellant stabbed Tillu in the abdomen, while Asgar inflicted another blow. The other accused also assaulted Tillu with fists and sticks. Tularam attempted to intervene but was also injured by Katchu and Ahmad.

Tillu and Tularam were taken to Katju Hospital for medical aid. Tillu was found without a pulse and with multiple stab wounds. Tularam had severe head injuries. Both were referred to Hamidia Hospital. Tillu succumbed to his injuries, while Tularam was admitted. Dr. C.S. Jain (P.W. 13) conducted Tillu’s post-mortem, determining that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage from multiple stab wounds and head injuries. Tularam passed away five days after surgery. Dr. Neelam Srivastava (P.W.15) conducted his post-mortem, concluding that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory failure due to a head injury.

The Investigating Officer (P.W.14), Girish Bohre, prepared a spot map and seized blood-stained floor pieces. Tularam’s statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), where he recounted the events. The Appellant’s disclosure statement led to the recovery of a knife, which was later examined but the blood group classification was inconclusive.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court found the Appellant guilty under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC but acquitted him under Sections 147 and 148 of the IPC. The High Court relied on the testimony of Lallu Vishwakarma (P.W.11), the medical opinions of Dr. C.S. Jain (P.W.13) and Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (P.W.15), the statement of deceased Tularam, and the recovery of the knife based on the Appellant’s disclosure statement.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 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, 1860 (IPC): 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.”
• Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines the punishment for rioting. “Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon. “Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines offense of every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object. “If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.”
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Empowers the police to examine witnesses.
• Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Deals with statements to police not to be signed and use of such statements in evidence.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA): Deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved. “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA): Defines cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead is relevant. “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. 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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Contradictions in Prosecution’s Case: The eyewitnesses claimed the incident occurred inside Bhairav Shastri’s Jhuggi, while the Investigating Officer stated there was no such place nearby. The defense argued that the incident occurring inside a Jhuggi makes it unbelievable for the eyewitnesses to have seen it.
• Disputed Presence: The Appellant’s presence at the scene was disputed, with Usha Bai (P.W.10) stating she only knew some of the accused by name, not the Appellant. The defense argued that there was no credible evidence of the Appellant’s presence or participation, apart from the eyewitness account.
• Unattributed Knife Injury: Lallu Vishwakarma (P.W.11) stated he could not discern who assaulted whom, making it impossible to attribute the knife injury to the Appellant.
• Inconclusive FSL Report: The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report on the recovered knife was inconclusive, bolstering the Appellant’s claim of false implication.
• Dying Declaration: The statement of the deceased Tularam, recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, could not be considered a dying declaration due to the absence of a doctor’s certification regarding Tularam’s mental fitness.
• Suspicious Dying Declaration: A dying declaration made before a police officer is always shrouded by suspicious circumstances and no reliance thereupon can be made.

State’s Arguments:

• Presence at the Scene: The Appellant’s presence and involvement were affirmed by Lallu Vishwakarma (P.W.11), and his cross-examination provided no reason to doubt his version.
• Knife Blow: There was a specific accusation against the Appellant of inflicting a knife blow on Tillu’s abdomen, supported by medical evidence (MLC by Dr. R.S. Vijayvargiya (P.W.4)).
• Recovery of Weapon: The Appellant voluntarily disclosed the location of the concealed knife, making the recovery admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
• Dying Declaration: The statement of deceased Tularam, recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, was rightly considered a dying declaration, corroborating the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Have the Courts below erred in not appreciating the contradictions or discrepancies which would dislodge the prosecution’s case?
2. Is the absence of blood group classification or inconclusive FSL results on the recovered weapon detrimental to the prosecution’s case?
3. Does the Investigating Officer’s failure to obtain a fitness certificate from the medical officer invalidate the consideration of the statement of Tularam recorded under Section 161 CrPC before his death, as a ‘dying declaration’?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Shivanna v. State of Hunsur Town Police (2010) 15 SCC 91: The Court followed this authority to establish that a site plan merely denotes the location of the incident without implying further details.
• State v. N.S. Gnaneswaran (2013) 3 SCC 594: The Court followed this authority to rule that the stipulations outlined in Section 154 CrPC concerning the reading over of information, signing by the informant, and entry of its substance are not obligatory.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600: The Court followed this authority to establish that identification tests do not serve as substantive evidence but are primarily intended to assist the investigating agency.
• Heera v. State of Rajasthan, (2007) 10 SCC 175: The Court followed this authority to establish that a failure to hold a parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in the court.
• Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 9 SCC 238: The Court followed this authority to analyze the incidents occurring at night and took into account several factors, including the proximity at which the assailants would have confronted the injured.
• Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47: The Court followed this authority to delineate the criteria for the admissibility of a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the IEA.
• Raja @ Rajinder v. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 43: The Court followed this authority to establish that the non-explanation of human blood on the weapon of crime constitutes a circumstance against the accused.
• John Pandian v. State (2010) 14 SCC 129: The Court followed this authority to establish that the non-explanation of human blood on the weapon of crime constitutes a circumstance against the accused.
• Mukeshbhai Gopalbhai Barot v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 224: The Court followed this authority to support the inter-play between provisions of the CrPC and the IEA, as explained above.
• Sri Bhagwan v. State of U.P. (2013) 12 SCC 137: The Court followed this authority to support the inter-play between provisions of the CrPC and the IEA, as explained above.
• Pradeep Bisoi v. State of Odisha (2019) 11 SCC 500: The Court followed this authority to support the inter-play between provisions of the CrPC and the IEA, as explained above.
• Koli Chunilal Savji v. State of Gujarat (1999) 9 SCC 562: The Court followed this authority to establish that the requirement for a dying declaration to be recorded in the presence of a doctor, following certification of the declarant’s mental fitness, is merely a matter of prudence.
• Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710: The Court followed this authority to rule that where eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factors, with a strong emphasis on the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and the corroborative medical evidence. The Court carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides and delved into the factual matrix to determine the veracity of the claims. The Court was not swayed by minor discrepancies and focused on the core elements of the case.

The Court placed significant weight on the following:

• Eyewitness Testimony: The consistent testimonies of Usha Bai (P.W.10) and Lallu Vishwakarma (P.W.11), despite minor inconsistencies, were deemed credible and reliable.
• Medical Evidence: The medical reports of Dr. C.S. Jain (P.W.13) and Dr. Neelam Shrivastava (P.W.15) corroborated the eyewitness accounts, confirming the nature and extent of the injuries.
• Recovery of Weapon: The recovery of the knife based on the Appellant’s disclosure statement was considered a crucial piece of evidence.
• Dying Declaration: The statement of the deceased Tularam, recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, was treated as a valid dying declaration, further supporting the prosecution’s case.
• Appellant’s Conduct: The Appellant’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the presence of human blood on the recovered knife and the absence of an alibi weighed against him.

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of this case can be summarized as follows:

• Minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies do not invalidate the prosecution’s case if the core elements of the testimony are consistent and credible.
• Inconclusive FSL reports on recovered weapons are not detrimental to the prosecution’s case if there is other evidence linking the accused to the crime, such as the recovery of the weapon based on the accused’s disclosure statement and the presence of human blood.
• A dying declaration recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC is valid even without a doctor’s certification of mental fitness if the statement is coherent, corroborated by medical evidence, and the declarant was able to convey their statement properly.
• The non-explanation of human blood on the weapon of crime constitutes a circumstance against the accused.
• The stipulations outlined in Section 154 CrPC concerning the reading over of information, signing by the informant, and entry of its substance are not obligatory.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta in this case includes the following:

• The Court emphasized that identification tests do not serve as substantive evidence but are primarily intended to assist the investigating agency.
• The Court highlighted that a site plan merely denotes the location of the incident without implying further details.
• The Court noted that a failure to hold a parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in the court.
• The Court reiterated that the requirement for a dying declaration to be recorded in the presence of a doctor, following certification of the declarant’s mental fitness, is merely a matter of prudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt, based on the consistent eyewitness testimonies, corroborative medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon, and the valid dying declaration. The Court’s analysis underscores the importance of a holistic approach to evidence evaluation, where minor discrepancies are not allowed to overshadow the substantive facts of the case.