Authored By: Smita Goswami
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2010 with Criminal Appeal No. 573 of 2016
Bench: Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose
Judgment Date:7th May 2021
Court: Supreme Court of India
Introduction
It is a case of dying declaration whether it is the sole basis of evidence. The dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and just like any other evidence, which satisfies the Court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and is safe to act upon it.
Relevant legal provisions
The relevant legal provisions involved in the case are described here as follows:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 34: Section 34 defines a criminal act conducted by several persons with a shared intention. In such a situation, all of them are liable as if they had committed such an illegal act alone.
Section 114: Section 114 talks about the punishment of an abettor when they are present at the time of the commission of the offence. According to this Section, if an abettor is present when the crime is committed, the abettor would be liable as if they had committed the crime themselves.
Section 302: Section 302 defines the punishment for murder. The penalty so prescribed is death or life imprisonment, and a fine.
Section 307: This section is related to the topic of an attempt to murder. Whenever any person with an intention or knowledge causes the other party’s death, then the party who has committed the crime will be punished with either description of a term between 2 to 10 years and a fine, or even both.
Section 504: This section defines the punishment as the act of intentionally provoking someone when the person pressing knows that the provocation would result in the breach of the public peace, shall be punished with either the imprisonment extendable to 2 years or fine or both.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 313: Section 313 talks about the power to examine the accused in a given inquiry or trial.
Section 378: Section 378 discusses the issue of appeal in the case of acquittal of the party. The appeal in this Section is made in the High Court challenging the decision of the lower courts. Also, an appeal against the High Court’s decision can be made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 32: Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 decides cases involving statements of relevant facts made by anyone who is either dead or cannot be found. Such statements made are deemed to fall in the category of relevant facts.
Facts of the case
1. In the present case, both parties knew each other very well. According to the Prosecution, there was some tussle between the families of both parties. Jayamma, the wife of Reddinaika, is the Appellant and the Respondent is Jayamma (deceased), the wife of Ramanaika.
2. On September 10, 1998, a quarrel took place between the two parties in which Thippeswamynaika, son of the dead Jayamma, injured and assaulted the husband of the Appellant i.e., Reddinaika.
3. After that, the Appellants went to the deceased’s house and confronted him about the assault committed on Reddinaika on September 21, 1998.
4. Rupees 4000 were demanded from the Respondents for the cost incurred in medical treatment. There was a heated exchange of words between the two parties, and the Appellants poured kerosene liquid on Jayamma (deceased) and set her on fire. The blame for killing Jayamma was explicitly attributed to the Appellants.
5. On hearing the cry of Jayamma, Ravi Kumar, another son of the deceased, and Saroja Bai, daughter-in-law of the dead and wife of Thippeswamynaika, arrived on the spot and tried to extinguish the fire. In the meantime, the Appellants ran away from the location.
6. Ravi Kumar requested assistance from Kumaranaika in transporting his mother to the hospital. The injured Jayamma was taken to a primary healthcare centre (P.H.C.). Thalak on a bullock cart.
7. There she received primary treatment from Dr. A. Thippeswamy, who also administered some pain killers to Jayamma. After that, the doctor sent medico-legal case information to the Thalak Police station.
8. On receiving the complaint, S.H.O. K.V. Mallikarjunappa came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Jayamma in the presence of Dr Thippeswamy. Jayamma signalled all the Appellants in the case.
9. On the basis of the said statement, Crime No. 101 of 1998 was registered at the Thalak Police Station under Sections 504, 307, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC.
10. Since Jayamma was in a critical condition, she was referred to the Government Hospital, Chitradurga but on September 23, 1998, at 5:30 am, Jayamma succumbed to her injuries.
11. After that, the police sent the requisition to the Court requesting them to register the offence under Section 302 read with Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 instead of Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
12. The body was sent for post-mortem, and it was found that Jayamma died of shock due to extensive burn injuries. Based on the statements of the witnesses, the Appellants were arrested during the investigation. However, they were able to obtain anticipatory bail and were thus released after the arrest.
13. The matter went to the Trial Court, and during the investigation in the Trial Court, several prosecution witnesses turned hostile, except the doctor and the police officer. The matter involved before the Trial Court was whether the death was homicidal or suicidal. The Court noted that the sole reliance was on the statement that was treated as a dying declaration.
14. But the Court did not find any reason for convicting the Accused because, according to it, the Prosecution failed in discharging the proof. The prosecution heavily relied upon the said statement in order to prove the guilt of the accused. However, upon considering the mitigating circumstances such as the testimonies of the hostile witnesses, the nature of the burn injuries of the victim, and the lack of any corroborative evidence, the Trial Court was of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the genuineness of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. The only thing on record was the statement of Jayamma, treated as a dying declaration, witnesses, and the nature of burn injuries of the victim. The evidence submitted to support the prosecution was found to be vague and unsatisfactory. Hence, the Appellants were acquitted.
16. It was found by the High Court that the evidence submitted and the dying declaration were enough to bring the conviction of the appellants. The High Court reversed the acquittal granted by the Trial Court and accordingly, the Appellants were convicted under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to life imprisonment.
17. Aggrieved by the High Court order, the Appellants filed two criminal appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellant’s counsel
The learned counsel for the Appellants is of the argument that the High Court has erred in reversing the acquittal order of the Trial Court solely based on the dying declaration of the deceased. It was contended that neither the High Court evaluated the entire evidence nor did it deal with the specific findings of the Trial Court, and as such, the High Court failed to discharge its obligation under Section 378 CrPC. Moreover, in the case of, it was argued that in the absence of a medical certificate attesting to the mental fitness of the deceased before the recording of the dying declaration, the High Court ought not to have placed any reliance upon Ex.P-5. It was then submitted that the High Court overlooked the fact that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish any motive in the present case and, thus, the conviction of the appellants was untenable.
Arguments by the Respondent’s Counsel
On the contrary, learned State Counsel supported the conviction awarded by the High Court. He clearly pointed out the High Court was justified in convicting the appellants with specific reasons. He even used the case to support his argument. Here, it was contended that in cases of hundred percent burn injuries, the Courts can rely upon the dying declaration to convict the accused.
Issues raised
The following issues were raised: -
A.Whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the trial court in the exercise of its power under Section 378 of the CrPC?
B.Whether the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased died a homicidal death at the hands of the appellants?
Judgment
The Supreme Court looked at the dying declaration of the deceased and found out that there was some manipulation done in the original dying order as it appeared that some words had been inserted by the police officer with a different ink. To advertise the actual admissibility and credibility of the statement, the Court quoted a few judgments close to the present case’s facts.
The brief of some of the decisions cited is presented here as below:
1. In a case[3], the question before the Court was to consider whether the percentage of burns suffered can act as a determinative factor in affecting the credibility and recording of a dying declaration. The Court held that there was no fixed universal rule in this regard, and it would depend upon the nature of the burn, the impact of the burn, and the part of the body affected by that.
2. In another case[4], the Honorable Supreme Court restated that “the dying declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and just like any other evidence satisfy the Court that what is stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is safe to act upon it.” Moreover, they gave some crisp, justified reasons on why the High Court was erroneous in reversing the verdict of the Trial Court.
a) They pointed out that the narration of events in the dying declaration seemed so accurate that even a witness in a normal state of mind could not be expected to do so. In addition to this, the events were somehow influenced by the police officer who was present at that time.
b) Secondly, the deceased woman was an unlettered, old person who was not expected to narrate the events with such high accuracy.
c) Thirdly, the injured 80% burn victim was charged with highly sedative painkillers, which cleared the fact that she might have been in a state of delusion while recording the dying declaration. Besides, it was endorsed by the doctor that she was in a fit state of mind ‘after’ the dying declaration and not before, contradicting the normal practice. Also, the police officer seemed to be in a hurry that he did not record the dying declaration in front of a Judicial or Executive Magistrate.
d) Fourthly, there was tremendous contradictions between the statements made by Dr Thippeswamy and the police officer, K V. Mallikarjunappa, regarding the injuries suffered by the victim in different parts of the body. The police officer stated that the deceased’s hands were not injured and that she, therefore, made a thumb impression, but the doctor claimed that the deceased’s hands were injured.
e) Fifthly, the police officer has admitted that he did not obtain a doctor's approval as to whether the injured was in a fit state of mind or not. The doctor and officer had tried to cover this solemn fact, and later on, the police officer took an endorsement regarding the state of mind unusually.
f) Sixthly, there was no evidence proving the death to be homicidal. The prosecution made no efforts to prove the fact that the deceased was lit with kerosene by the appellants. In addition to this, the son and daughter in law later agreed to the fact that she committed suicide.
g) The seventh reason was that there was a divergence from natural recourse being taken, that is, lodging a complaint at the nearest police station for reporting such a ghastly crime, by the son and daughter in law of the deceased.
The police officer had enough time to call an Executive/Judicial Magistrate to record the dying declaration. It is believed that such officers have the requisite training to judicially record a dying declaration after complying with particular prerequisites such as certification or endorsement from a medical officer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court was reluctant to accept the contents of the dying declaration. It further said that the victim was brought to the Civil hospital at 12:30 on September 22, 1998. She died due to burn injuries almost 30 hours later, i.e., at 5:30 am on September 23, 1998. There was adequate time to call the Executive Magistrate, but the same did not happen. The Supreme Court felt that the power of authority by the High Court under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not be invoked routinely when the view of the Trial Court is the possible and correct one. The judgment of the Trial Court should not be set aside merely on the fact that the High Court finds its view more correct and reasonable.
The above reasons make it clear why the High Court should not have reversed the verdict by the Trial Court and why the prosecution also failed to establish that it was a homicidal death at the hands of the appellants. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court finds it difficult to hold the appellants guilty based only on the dying declaration. Both the criminal appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the charge.
Conclusion
The above-mentioned case throws light on the fact that a single mistake during the interpretation of a case can lead to injustice. Here, if the Supreme Court had not reversed the verdict by the Trial Court, the appellants would have been mistakenly convicted of a crime they have not committed. Someone who is not guilty of any wrongful act and getting convicted poses a threat to the mental health of the person as well as on his family. Society also starts viewing him from a different perspective.
Thus, a proper understanding of the situation and putting facts in front of judges by the respective counsels play a major role while delivering a decree or a judgment.
Precedents
[1]Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors v. State of A.P [(1999) 7 SCC. 695 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1361]
[2]Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)(2015) 4 SCC
[3]P.V. Radhakrishna v State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 2859 : 2003 AIR(SCW) 3587 : 2003 (6) JT 84 : 2003 (5) Scale 438 : 2003 (6) SCC 443 : 2003 (5) Supreme 98 : 2003 (4) RLW 557
[4]Sham Shankar Kankaria v State of Maharashtra,(2006) 13 SCC. 165)
Bibliography
1. Jayamma v State of Karnataka https://blog.ipleaders.in/jayamma-anr-v-the-state-of-karnataka-the-supreme-court-clarifies-the-law-on-dying-declaration/
2. Judgment https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/38202/38202_2009_31_1503_28001_Judgement_07-May-2021.pdf
Comments