Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Oral Dying Declaration: Kamal Khudal vs. State of Assam (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 14 July 2022

Citation: Kamal Khudal vs. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2015, decided on 14 July 2022

Judges: Surya Kant, J. and J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Can a murder conviction be solely based on an oral dying declaration? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the primary evidence was an oral statement made by the deceased before his death. This case examines the evidentiary value of such declarations and the circumstances under which they can be considered reliable. The Supreme Court, in this criminal appeal, upheld the conviction, emphasizing the importance of the truthfulness of the statement and its corroboration with other evidence.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala. The judgment was authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

Case Background

On July 15, 2007, at approximately 7:00 AM, the appellant, Kamal Khudal, along with co-accused Munna Bhoi, went to the residence of the deceased, Uttam Dutta. They took Uttam Dutta with them, purportedly for paddy plantation work. Uttam Dutta’s brother, Utpal Dutta, witnessed him leaving with the accused. When Uttam did not return home by late evening, his family began searching for him. His body was discovered in a drain at the Duribam Tea Estate, bearing multiple injuries, including severe burns.

Following the discovery of the body, Utpal Dutta filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Kakatibari Police Station, leading to the registration of Case No. 24/2007 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to murder.

The investigation revealed that Munna Bhoi operated a local liquor factory near his paddy field. After working in the field, Uttam Dutta accompanied the accused to the factory. An incident occurred there, and locals reported hearing a commotion. Subsequently, Uttam was seen leaving the factory with burn injuries. He told a witness, Hanu Khetrapal (PW-2), that the accused had poured hot “lali” (a raw material for liquor) on him, causing the burns. Uttam then left, and his body was later found in the drain.

The police arrested Kamal Khudal, Munna Bhoi, and Bipon Bhoi. A charge sheet was filed against all three for murder. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, which framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC (common intention) against all three accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Sivasagar, convicted Kamal Khudal and Munna Bhoi under Section 302 of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. Bipon Bhoi was acquitted due to lack of evidence. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Kamal Khudal and Munna Bhoi, upholding the trial court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” The prosecution also invoked Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. It states, “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.”

The case also involves the concept of a dying declaration, which is an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. While not explicitly defined in the IPC, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration is well-established through judicial precedents. The principle is based on the idea that a person on the verge of death is unlikely to lie.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Kamal Khudal):

• The conviction is based solely on an unreliable oral dying declaration made by the deceased to PW-2, Hanu Khetrapal.
• An oral dying declaration is a weak piece of evidence and should not be relied upon without corroboration.
• The courts below should have insisted on corroboration, especially since the declaration was not recorded in writing by an Executive Magistrate.
• The case is based on circumstantial evidence, and the circumstances do not conclusively point to the appellant’s guilt.
• The fact that the appellant was seen with the deceased in the morning is not an incriminating circumstance.

State of Assam’s Arguments:

The State of Assam, despite being served notice, did not present any arguments or oppose the appeal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court committed any error in dismissing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

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 Court relied on Heikrujam Chaoba Singh v. State of Manipur, (1999) 8 SCC 458* to reiterate the legal position regarding oral dying declarations. The Court noted that while corroboration is generally sought as a rule of prudence, it is not mandatory if the court is convinced of the truthfulness of the declaration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the reliability of the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to PW-2, Hanu Khetrapal. The Court noted that Hanu Khetrapal’s testimony was natural and credible, with no apparent reason to fabricate the story. The medical evidence, which confirmed the severe burn injuries on the deceased’s body, corroborated the deceased’s statement that the accused had poured hot “lali” on him. Additionally, the appellant’s conduct of absconding after the incident weighed against him, suggesting a consciousness of guilt. The combination of these factors led the Court to conclude that the appellant was indeed guilty of murder.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that an oral dying declaration is weak evidence and requires corroboration. However, it emphasized that if the court is satisfied with the truthfulness of the declaration, corroboration is not mandatory. The Court also considered the circumstantial evidence, including the fact that the appellant was seen with the deceased before the incident and that he absconded after the incident. These circumstances, combined with the oral dying declaration and medical evidence, led the Court to reject the appellant’s arguments.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating, “We are of the view, having regard to the evidence on record, that High Court was justified in accepting the oral dying declaration made by the deceased before the PW-2 as one reliable and inspiring confidence.” The Court also noted, “Besides the same, the oral dying declaration of the deceased made before Hanu Khetrapal (PW-2) stands corroborated with the medical evidence on record.” Furthermore, the Court observed, “The appellant accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC has not explained where he was between 15.07.2007 and 23.07.2007, that is, till the date of his arrest. This is one another incriminating circumstance…”

The Court did not find any dissenting opinions in the judgment.

Key Takeaways

• An oral dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if the court finds it to be truthful and reliable.
• Corroboration of an oral dying declaration is not mandatory if the court is convinced of its veracity.
• Medical evidence can be used to corroborate an oral dying declaration.
• The conduct of the accused, such as absconding, can be considered an incriminating circumstance.
• The courts will scrutinize the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses before relying on an oral dying declaration.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an oral dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable and trustworthy by the court. This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that while corroboration is a rule of prudence, it is not mandatory if the court is convinced of the truthfulness of the dying declaration. This case does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the application of the principle in cases where the primary evidence is an oral dying declaration.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Kamal Khudal for murder. The Court found the oral dying declaration of the deceased to be reliable, supported by medical evidence, and further strengthened by the appellant’s conduct of absconding. This case highlights the importance of dying declarations in criminal jurisprudence and the circumstances under which they can be considered conclusive evidence.