Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC), has emphasized upon the critical importance of ensuring that a dying declaration is trustworthy and reliable, and inspires confidence when it is considered the sole basis for a criminal conviction in the matter of Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana.

What is the Background of the Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana Case?

• The marriage between the deceased and the appellant was solemnized in 1987.
• It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that the appellant used to harass the deceased on account of giving him insufficient dowry.
  • Succumbing to the demands of the appellant, the parents of the deceased paid the appellant in cash and in 1990, gave him a scooter and gold ornaments.
  • Further, the demands for dowry continued which were brought to the notice of the father and brother of deceased by her.
• Eventually the deceased was burnt and was taken to the hospital where she was admitted and was unconscious.
• Medical examination revealed that the deceased had 91% burns on her body.
• When the deceased regained consciousness, she told her brother that it was the appellant who had burnt her.
• The Executive Magistrate filed an application to obtain the opinion of the medical expert regarding her fit state of mind to record the statement, it was recorded at about 4:40 P.M. the same day and her thumb impression was obtained.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was recorded based on the said statement of the deceased against her father-in-law, mother-in-law and the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 307, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Later on, upon death of the victim upon completion of investigation charges were framed for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 304-B of IPC.
• The Sessions judge convicted them under Section 304-B but gave the benefit of doubt to acquit them under section 302 IPC.
• The High Court (HC) acquitted the father-in-law under Section 304-B IPC but confirmed the sentence given to the appellant.
• Dissatisfied with this, the appellant turned to the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The three-judge bench of SC comprising of Justices BR Gavai, Justice PS Narsimha, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Court highlighted the significant disparity in how the dying declaration was handled by the HC.
  • While the declaration was admitted as evidence against the appellant, it was met with skepticism in the case of the deceased's father-in-law.
• SC observed that the doctor testified that the Executive Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration at 04:40 P.M. at the given day but he himself had issued an opinion regarding the deceased's fitness at 06:00 P.M. This raised doubts about the genuineness of the examination.
• Considering the entirety of the circumstances, the SC determined that the Dying Declaration (DD) could not be deemed untainted.
• SC further stated that in light of the above observations and doubts surrounding the evidence, it can be said that the prosecution has not established the case under Section 304-B of IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. The SC therefore opined “Insofar as harassment with regard to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry is concerned, except the vague allegation, there is nothing in their evidence to support the prosecution case” thereby setting aside the conviction of appellant.

What is Dying Declaration?

• A dying declaration is called as “Leterm Mortem” which means words said before death. The concept of DD is based upon the Latin maxim “nemomoriturus prae-sumitur mentire” meaning a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth.
• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) under Section 32(1) mentions about the concept of DD as:
  • Section 32 - Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant - (1) When it relates to cause of death –– 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.
• A DD can be recorded in any form i.e., it can be oral, written or in be made by gestures.
  • In Queen-Empress v. Abdulla (1885), the Allahabad High Court held that if the injured person is unable to speak, he can make dying declaration by signs and gestures in response to the question.
• Points of Consideration while recording DD
  • The declarant was in a sound state of mind at the commencement of the recording of the statement and remained in such a state of mind throughout the completion of the recording of DD.
  • The fit state of mind of the declarant can be certified by the doctor.
  • Declarant should not be under the influence of anybody or prepared by prompting, tutoring or imagination.
  • If a declarant has made more than one DD:
    • If these are not at variance with each other such DDs retain their full value.
    • If these declarations are inconsistent or contradictory to each other then such DD loses its value.

What are the precedents of the Courts Regarding DD?

• Pakala Narain Swamy v. Emperor (1939) Case: The Privy Council ruled that circumstances leading to the declarant's demise would be admissible if they had a direct connection to the actual event.
• Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) Case: The SC established that when the primary evidence comprises of statements and letters written by the deceased that are closely linked to her demise and provide a narrative about the incident, such statements would unquestionably fall within the purview of Section 32 of IEA.
• State By Kamakshipalya Police v. Maregowda (2001) Case: Karnataka High Court held that a suicide note discovered in the deceased's clothing is considered akin to a dying declaration and is admissible as evidence in accordance with Section 32 of the IEA.
• Ganpat Mahadeo Mane v. State of Maharashtra (1992) Case: In the matter at hand, the SC concluded that among the three dying declarations documented by a Doctor, Police, and Magistrate, the absence of a question-answer format in the declaration recorded by the Magistrate is not a significant factor.
• Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958): In this case there were 4 DDs that were consistent with each other the SC held that:
  • There is no rule of prudence that DDs cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
  • Where DD is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroboration.
  • Where the court is satisfied that DD is true and voluntary it can form the sole basis of conviction.
  • As there were 4 consistent DDs, they were allowed to be considered as the sole basis of conviction in this case.

What are the Provisions Related under IEA and IPC?

The provision of Dowry Death is incorporated under Section 304B of IPC whereas Section 113 B of IEA talks about the presumption by court in case of such death.

• Section 304 B - Dowry Death —

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

• Section 113 B - Presumption as to dowry death ––-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
• Dowry as defined under Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:
  • It means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
    • by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
    • by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,
    • at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat).