Back
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
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.
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 Cour
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 t....
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and corroborated, emphasizing its legal admissibility in murder cases.
Dying declarations can be the basis for conviction if they are found to be truthful and voluntary; however, they must be carefully scrutinized, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence.
The court reinforces that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if deemed truthful, voluntary, and corroborated by reliable evidence.
The court emphasized the necessity for rigorous scrutiny of dying declarations, particularly when inconsistencies exist and the declarant cannot be cross-examined.
The court held that the dying declarations were not reliable due to inconsistencies between them and the lack of medical evidence to support the deceased's fitness to make the statements.
Dying declarations can only support a conviction if consistent and made in a fit mental state; inconsistencies create reasonable doubt.
The reliability of a dying declaration and the importance of corroboration and support from other witnesses in a criminal case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
