Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Rape and Murder Case: State of Jharkhand vs. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 31 October 2022

Citation: Criminal Appeal No 1441 of 2022

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Can a dying declaration recorded by a police officer be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving rape and murder, overturning a High Court acquittal. This case highlights the importance of dying declarations in Indian law and the circumstances under which they can be considered valid evidence.

Case Background

On the afternoon of 7 November 2004, the respondent, Shailendra Kumar Rai, allegedly entered the victim’s house in Narangi village. The prosecution’s case is that he pushed her to the ground, raped her, and threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm. When she cried for help, he allegedly poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Her cries alerted her grandfather, mother, and a neighbor, who rushed to her room. The respondent fled upon seeing them.

The victim’s family, along with the neighbor, extinguished the fire and took her to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar. The police station in-charge at PS Sarwna was informed of the incident and recorded the victim’s statement (‘fard beyan’) at the hospital on the same day. In her statement, she described the events as mentioned above.

Based on the victim’s statement, FIR No. 163 of 2004 was registered at PS Sarwna. The investigation began, and a charge sheet was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for offences under Sections 307, 341, 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The victim died on 14 December 2004, leading to a supplementary charge sheet being filed against the respondent under Section 302 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the respondent under Sections 302, 341, 376, and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder and 10 years for rape. The Sessions Court relied heavily on the dying declaration of the victim, finding it credible and voluntary. The Sessions Court rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the mental fitness of the declarant, the hostile witnesses, and the lack of chemical analysis of seized items.

The High Court of Jharkhand overturned the Sessions Court’s decision, acquitting the respondent. The High Court cited several reasons for its decision, including the declaration of the victim’s family members as hostile witnesses, contradictions in the testimony of Dr. RK Pandey regarding his presence during the recording of the dying declaration, and the lack of medical evidence of rape. The High Court also relied on a previous Supreme Court judgment in Moti Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh to question the admissibility of the dying declaration, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of statements made by a person who has died. Specifically, it states:

“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.”

This section makes such statements relevant, whether the person making them was expecting death or not. The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 60 of the Evidence Act, which stipulates that oral evidence must be direct.
• Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, related to the submission of charge sheets by the police.
• Sections 302, 307, 341, 376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, related to murder, attempt to murder, wrongful restraint, rape and house trespass.

Arguments

Appellant’s (State of Jharkhand) Submissions:

• The High Court did not correctly appreciate the evidence. Specifically, Dr. RK Pandey was attending to a patient on the table adjacent to the deceased, not in a separate room.
• The post-mortem report concluded that the cause of death was septicemia due to the burn injuries sustained by the victim.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The Medical Board’s report stated that no definite opinion could be given regarding the rape, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
• The victim died a month after the incident, so her statement to the IO is not a dying declaration.

Sub-Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for determination:

1. Whether the statement of the deceased is relevant under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872?
2. Whether the prosecution has proved the charges against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court distinguished Moti Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, stating that the case was not applicable here as the cause of death was clearly established by the post-mortem report, unlike in the cited case.

✓ The Court followed State of Karnataka v. Shariff and Bhagirath v. State of Haryana, reiterating that a dying declaration recorded by a police officer is not inadmissible for that reason alone.

✓ The Court relied on Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay to evaluate the dying declaration, emphasizing that it stands on the same footing as other pieces of evidence and must be judged in light of surrounding circumstances.

✓ The Court followed Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, clarifying that a dying declaration need not be in a question-answer format to be admissible.

✓ The Court followed Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, stating that a medical expert’s opinion is not conclusive as to the existence of any fact.

✓ The Court relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav, reiterating that there is no rule of law or prudence that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated.

✓ The Court cited Ramesh v. State of Haryana to highlight the reasons why witnesses turn hostile.

✓ The Court followed Satbir v. Surat Singh and State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, stating that the Supreme Court may exercise its power to do complete justice and reverse orders of acquittal to avert a miscarriage of justice.

✓ The Court followed Lillu v. State of Haryana, holding that the two-finger test violates the right to privacy, integrity, and dignity.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Sessions Court’s conviction. The Supreme Court found that the victim’s dying declaration was credible, voluntary, and consistent with the medical evidence of burn injuries. The Court emphasized that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be truthful and reliable.

The Court noted that the High Court had incorrectly observed that Dr. RK Pandey was in an adjacent room when the dying declaration was recorded. The Court clarified that Dr. Pandey was in the same room, attending to a patient on an adjacent table.

The Court also addressed the issue of hostile witnesses, stating that the fact that some witnesses turned hostile is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as those witnesses were not eye witnesses to the crime. The Court also rejected the defense’s arguments regarding the lack of medical evidence of rape, stating that the dying declaration is sufficient evidence.

The Court also discussed the “two-finger test,” condemning it as regressive, invasive, and lacking scientific basis. The Court directed the Union and State Governments to ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals, to conduct workshops for health providers, and to review the curriculum in medical schools to ensure that the “two-finger test” is not prescribed.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and restored the Sessions Court’s conviction and sentencing of the respondent.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The post -mortem report prepared by Dr. R Mahto (PW 8) states that the cause of death of the victim was septicemia, which was a result of the burn injuries sustained by the victim.”

“In terms of Section 32, statements (either written or verbal) of relevant facts are themselves relevant facts when they are made by the following classes of people: a person who is dead; a person who cannot be found; a person who is incapable of giving evidence; or a person whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense.”

“The dying declaration makes it abundantly clear that the respondent raped the deceased, poured kerosene on her, and set her on fire. The cause of death was septicemia, which occurred as a result of the burn injuries.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the credibility and consistency of the dying declaration, which was given significant weight. The Court also emphasized that the cause of death was clearly linked to the injuries inflicted by the respondent, as confirmed by the post-mortem report. The Court was also concerned with the High Court’s misinterpretation of the evidence and the need to correct a miscarriage of justice. The Court also strongly condemned the use of the “two-finger test” and its implications for the dignity and rights of survivors of sexual violence.

Fact:Law Ratio

Key Takeaways

• A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be credible and voluntary.
• A dying declaration recorded by a police officer is not inadmissible for that reason alone.
• Medical evidence is not conclusive and cannot discredit witnesses of fact.
• The “two-finger test” is regressive, invasive, and must not be conducted.
• The sexual history of a victim is irrelevant in determining whether rape has occurred.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Union and State Governments to:

• Ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals.
• Conduct workshops for health providers to communicate the appropriate procedure to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape.
• Review the curriculum in medical schools to ensure that the “two-finger test” or per vaginum examination is not prescribed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a dying declaration, if found to be credible and voluntary, can be the sole basis for conviction in a criminal case. The Court emphasized that a dying declaration recorded by a police officer is not inadmissible for that reason alone. The Court also reiterated that medical evidence is not conclusive and cannot discredit witnesses of fact. This case reinforces the importance of dying declarations in Indian law and clarifies the circumstances under which they can be considered valid evidence. The judgment also strongly condemns the use of the “two-finger test”, reinforcing the legal position against such invasive and unscientific practices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s acquittal and restoring the Sessions Court’s conviction of the respondent for rape and murder. The Court emphasized the importance of dying declarations as evidence and condemned the use of the “two-finger test”. This judgment reinforces the legal position of dying declarations and provides clear directions to the government regarding medical examinations in sexual assault cases.