1. Murder charge under Section 302 IPC — Death due to burn injuries — Conflicting dying declarations — Appeal against acquittal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 553
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
State of Punjab – Appellant
Versus
Randhir Singh Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(S). 660-661 of 2015
Decided On : 09-07-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. C. Kaushik, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Jain, D.A.G. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R. C. Kaushik, AOR
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal, the importance of corroborative evidence, and the need for consistency in witness testimony.
Headnote:
Dying Declaration - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 34 - Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appeals by the State of Punjab against the acquittal of the accused by the High Court. The deceased, Smt. Kuldeep Kaur, was allegedly set on fire by her in-laws. The trial court convicted the accused based on the dying declaration of the victim, but the High Court acquitted them, finding discrepancies in the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declarations of the victim were contradictory, and the prosecution witnesses gave unreliable and inconsistent statements. The court held that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the dying declarations and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that if two views are possible, one favorable to the accused prevails. The court also highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for consistency in witness testimony.
Final Decision: The appeals by the State of Punjab were dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused by the High Court was upheld.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Reliability of police-recorded dying declaration versus Magistrate-recorded statement — Existence of motive — Allegations of fabrication of evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Contradictions in dying declarations — Unreliability of partisan witnesses — Medical evidence contradicting the prosecution's theory — Probability of accidental fire. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 )
4. Limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal — If two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must prevail. (Para 14 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Judgment of acquittal affirmed. (Para 45 , 46 )
6. What is the scope of interference by a higher court in an appeal against acquittal?
Interference is very limited and permissible only if the judgment suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence. If two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must prevail. (Para 14 )
7. How does the court evaluate conflicting dying declarations?
The court analyzes contradictions between statements. A declaration lacking medical endorsement or appearing as a post-investigation fabrication, especially when contradicted by a Magistrate's record and medical evidence, may be discarded as unreliable. (Para 25 , 36 , 37 , 43 , 44 )
8. How should the evidence of close family members be evaluated in criminal trials?
Evidence from close family members must be viewed with a greater degree of circumspection, particularly when their narratives are partisan, contain material falsities, or are contradicted by independent medical evidence. (Para 30 , 39 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by the State of Punjab to assail the judgment dated 17th July, 2014 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos. 580 of 2002 and 606 of 2002 whereby, the learned Division Bench, allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents(accused) and acquitted them while reversing the judgment dated 12th July, 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot(hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1998. The learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused as below: -
| Randhir Singh (Accused No. 1)(A1) | U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’) and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with fine amounting to Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, each. |
| Surjit Kaur alias Seeto (Accused No. 3)(A3) | U/s 302 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with fine amounting to Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, each. |
| Baldev Singh (Accused No. 2)(A2) | U/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with fine amounting to Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, each. |
| Karamjit Kaur (Accused No. 4)(A4) | U/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with fine amounting to Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, each. |
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that Randhir Singh(A1) was married to the deceased-Smt. Kuldeep Kaur @ Raj Kaur(hereinafter being referred to as ‘victim’/‘deceased’) about 6 to 7 years prior to the date of incident, i.e. 24th August, 1998. Randhir Singh(A1) and his elder brother Baldev Singh(A2) brought the victim to the Civil Hospital, Kotakpura in a seriously burnt condition(80% burns). The intimation regarding the arrival of a woman at the hospital in a burnt condition was sent to the concerned police station by the duty doctor vide ruqa(intimation) (Exhibit-PA) whereupon, Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) reached the hospital. In the intervening period, considering the serious condition of the victim, she was referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot(hereinafter being referred to as ‘GGSMC Hospital’). Thereupon, Surjit Singh(PW-11) proceeded to the GGSMC Hospital and made an enquiry from the doctor attending the victim about her fitness to give a statement. At 9:30 am, the doctor vide endorsement(Exhibit-PF), declared the victim to be ‘unfit’ to make a statement. On the same day, at around 12:50 pm, the duty doctor, vide another endorsement(Exhibit-PG) declared that the victim was ‘fit’ to give her statement. Thereupon, at 1:30 pm Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) claims to have recorded a statement(Exhibit-PM) of the victim. At 2:00 pm, on the very same day, Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement(Exhibit-PJ and PJ/1) of the victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) and thereupon, a formal First Information Report(FIR)(Exhibit-PM/2) came to be registered.
3. Investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was filed against Surjit Kaur @ Seeto(A3), mother-in-law of the deceased and Randhir Singh(A1), husband of the deceased for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Babu Singh(A5), father-in-law of the deceased, Karamjit Kaur @ Pappi(A4), sister-in law(jethani) and Baldev Singh(A2), brother-in-law(jeth)) for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Since the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed and made over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot for trial. The trial Court framed charges a
