Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 1221
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
Surjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 565 of 2012
Decided On : 07-12-2023
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kothari, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Adv. Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv. Ms. Harshita Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. B. S Randhawa, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gaurav Dhama, A.A.G. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Ms. Malvika Raghavan, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder of wife – Conviction cannot be sustained where dying declaration made by deceased is contrary to evidence on record.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of wife – Life sentence – Case of prosecution mainly rests on dying declaration of deceased – There is no reason to discard testimony of Doctor, especially about dying declaration made before him by deceased that she herself consumed tablets containing poison – His version cannot be discarded only on the ground that he did not inform Police in writing about disclosure made by deceased – Mother of deceased is an interested witness – Dying declaration made before Doctor is completely contrary to version of mother of deceased – Mother of deceased is an interested witness – Serious doubt is created in mind of Court about entire prosecution case – Case made out by prosecution is not free from doubt – Guilt of appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted of offence alleged against him. (Paras 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, who is husband of deceased, was convicted by Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by Trial Court. Conviction of appellant has been confirmed by High Court by impugned judgment.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgments are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of offence alleged against him. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The appellant, who is the husband of the deceased, was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”). He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Trial Court. The conviction of the appellant has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
3. According to the prosecution case, there used to be constant disputes between the deceased and the appellant (her husband) from the day of their marriage. Though the couple was blessed with a son and a daughter, the disputes continued.
4. As per the prosecution case, on 6th July, 1999, in the evening, while giving drinking water to the deceased, the appellant mixed certain substance in the water. It is alleged that thereafter her health started deteriorating. On 7th July, 1999, Kaushalya Devi (PW-7), the mother of the deceased, came to the matrimonial home of the deceased to enquire about her health. It was Kaushalya Devi (PW-7) who took the deceased to Dr. Pirthipal Memorial Hospital, Kotkapura. On the next day i.e. 8th July, 1999, the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Kotkapura. After the deceased was taken to the Civil Hospital, Dr. B.K. Kapoor (PW-1) found that the case was of suspected poisoning and the condition of the deceased was very serious. Therefore, after sending an intimation to the Police Station, Dr. B.K. Kapoor (PW-1) referred the case to GGS Medical College, Faridkot. On receipt of the information, Surjit Singh, ASI (PW-10) went to GGS Medical College and submitted an application to the doctor to certify the fitness of the deceased to make a statement. Accordingly, on the application itself, the doctor certified her fitness at 4:30 p.m. Thereafter, Surjit Singh (PW-10) proceeded to record her statement, which is treated as the dying declaration in which the deceased stated that it was the appellant who administered poison to her. The cause of death, as certified by the Forensic Department, was poisoning due to aluminium phosphide. Initially, an offence was registered under Section 307 of the IPC which was converted into Section 302 of the IPC after the deceased died at 6:50 p.m. on 8th July, 1999.
5. Both the Courts believed the prosecution case regarding the dying declaration recorded by Surjit Singh (PW-10). The Courts discarded the testimony of Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13), who was running Dr. Pirthipal Memorial Hospital. The Courts have also relied upon the testimony of Kaushalya Devi (PW-7), the mother of the deceased.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses and the documents on record. According to him, as the doctor has not certified that the deceased was fit enough to give a statement when Surjit Singh (PW-10) allegedly recorded her dying declaration, the same will have to be discarded. He urged that the first dying declaration has been made before Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13), who was the prosecution witness. He stated that the deceased disclosed to him that she herself consumed the aluminium phosphide tablets. The learned counsel pointed out several lacunae in the prosecution case.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the Courts have rightly discarded the testimony of Dr. Manvir Gupta (PW-13) on the ground that while informing the Police regarding the medico-legal case admitted to his Hospital, he did not inform the Station House Officer (SHO) about the disclosure allegedly made to him by the deceased. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted that one hour before the dying declaration was recorded by Surjit Singh (PW-10), a doctor attached to the Hospital gave fitness certificate. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the testimony of Surjit Singh (PW-10) and the genuineness of the dying declaration recorded by him. He would, therefore, submit that the Co
