2006 Supreme(SC) 1081

2006(9) Supreme 331
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Ranjit Singh & Ors. - Appellants
versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2005
Decided on 9-11-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Vineet Bhagat, K.G. Bhagat, Manohar Singh Bakshi and Debasis Misra, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ms. Avneet Toor and Arun K. Sinha, Advocates.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/34 - Conviction on basis of Dying declaration - Two dying declarations, one recorded by Investigating Officer and treated to be a FIR and Second dying declaration recorded by Judicial Magistrate - Inconsistencies in two dying declarations - Sustainability of conviction - Appellants convicted were the two brothers-in-law and their wives, parents in law and husband of deceased - High Court in appeal had set aside conviction of husband giving benefit of doubt - Appeal - In both dying declarations, genesis of occurrence was stated to be same - Mode and manner in which same was done as also role played by appellants were some what inconsistent - Consistent evidence of two doctors PW3 and PW12 that victim was fully conscious and though she had pain she was fit to make statement - Deceased in her first dying declaration ascribed role of her father-in-law as pouring kerosene oil and mother-in-law setting her on fire by ablazing by match stick - In second dying declaration she stated that mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene on her and set her ablaze - Role of mother-in-law in lighting match stick was consistent - Inconsistency in two statements if two brothers-in-law and their wives had caught hold of deceased during incident as in second dying declaration role ascribed was only to the men i.e. brothers-in-law alone - Appellants brother-in-law and wives deserved benefit of doubt - Father-in-law and one brother in law had expired during pendency of appeal - Conviction of accused mother in law was liable to be confirmed.

       Held : It is solely based on the dying declaration of the deceased. Corroboration thereto, if any, can be sought from the fact that it was established that they had been quarreling on earlier occasions also. In both her dying declarations, the genesis of the occurrence is stated to be the same, however the mode and the manner in which the same was done as also the role played by the appellants and her father-in-law Ranjit Singh, are somewhat inconsistent.(Para 11)

       It is now well settled that conviction can be recorded on the basis of a dying declaration alone, if the same is wholly reliable, but in the event there exists any suspicion as regards correctness or otherwise of the said dying declaration, the Courts in arriving at the judgment of conviction shall look for some corroborating evidence. It is also well known that in a case where inconsistencies in the dying declarations, in relation to the active role played by one or the other accused persons, exist, the Court shall lean more towards the first dying declaration than the second one. We, however, are not in a position to persuade ourselves to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that we should not accept any of the dying declarations at all or any part thereof.(Paras 13 and 14)

       We may, at this juncture, notice the discrepancies which were considered by both the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court. Whereas the deceased in her first dying declaration ascribed the role of her father-in-law as pouring kerosene on her and the role of ablazing by a match stick to her mother-in-law, but in her statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate, she stated that the mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene on her and then she set ablaze her with a match stick. It is, therefore, evident that the role of Roshan Kaur, (mother-in-law) in lighting the match stick is consistent.(Para 18)

       We, however, are not in a position to accept the statement of the deceased as regards the roles played by the other accused persons, namely, the brother-in-laws of the deceased and their respective wives.(Para 19)

       The role ascribed to Vir Kaur, wife of Dalip Singh (since deceased), and Bimla Kaur wife of Santokh Singh, together with their husbands is that they had allegedly caught hold of her.(Para 20)

       Whereas in the second dying declaration, the deceased alleged that while after quarreling with her husband, she wanted to leave the house and for that purpose she started gathering clothes, her father-in-law came, followed by her sister-in-law Bimla Kaur. Ranjit Singh, her father-in-law and brothers of her husband, namely, Dalip Singh and Santokh Singh, had also come there. According to her, all the men were helping her mother-in-law and at that point of time her mother-in-law set her ablaze with a match stick. The inconsistency in the roles ascribed to her brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law is, therefore, evident. In her first dying declaration, the role of catching hold of her was ascribed to all of them, other than the mother-in-law; but in the second statement it was ascribed only to the men, namely her brothers-in-law alone.(Para 21)

       We are, therefore of the opinion that in a case of this nature, the rule of caution should be applied and therefore benefit of doubt should be given to appellant Nos. 2, 4 and 5, namely, Santokh Singh, Vir Kaur w/o Dalip Singh and Bimla Kaur w/o Santokh Singh, respectively.(Para 22)

       For the reasons aforementioned the appeal of Roshan Kaur, appellant No. 3, is dismissed and the appeal filed by appellant No. 2 - Santokh Singh, appellant No. 4 - Vir Kaur and appellant No. 5 - Bimla Kaur, is allowed. Appellant No. 3 - Roshan Kaur is directed to surrender and she be taken into custody immediately.(Para 25)

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32 - Dying declaration - Inconsistencies in two dying declarations in relation to active role played by one or the other accused persons - Court shall lean more towards the 1st dying declaration than the second one.

       Held : It is now well settled that conviction can be recorded on the basis of a dying declaration alone, if the same is wholly reliable, but in the event there exists any suspicion as regards correctness or otherwise of the said dying declaration, the Courts in arriving at the judgment of conviction shall look for some corroborating evidence. It is also well known that in a case where inconsistencies in the dying declarations, in relation to the active role played by one or the other accused persons, exist, the Court shall lean more towards the first dying declaration than the second one.(Para 13)

       We, however, are not in a position to persuade ourselves to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that we should not accept any of the dying declarations at all or any part thereof.(Para 14)