JUDEGMENT SUMMARY:
State of UP vs Veerpal
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
1st February 2022
JUDGES:
M.R. Shah, J.
B.V. Nagarathna, J.
PARTIES:
State of U.P. (Appellant)
Veerpaland Anr. (Respondent)
SUBJECT
A two-judge bench of theSupreme Court held that the accused can be convicted based solely upon dying declaration without corroboration. The accused were charged for murder of the deceased based on her dying statement recorded by the Magistrate.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The deceased was allegedly burnt to death by her in-laws, the respondents, for dowry. Before her death, two dying declarations were recorded from her- one by the police officer and another by the SDM with a two days gap between them.
a) The first dying declaration specified that the father-in-law of the deceased had chased her and beaten her up for which she committed suicide out of fear.
b) In the second dying statement, it was specifically stated that the respondents had burnt her after pouring kerosene over her along with particular mentions of their names.
2. The statements of ten witnesses were recorded along with other necessary evidence such as medical evidence to prove the charges. Medical evidence provided that the deceased had sustained injuries on her head and backside and not her chest which would not have happened if she had committed suicide.
3. The respondents had put forth the defense that the deceased had herself poured the kerosene on her.
4. The Trial Court had convicted the respondents for the offence of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
5. The respondents had appealed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which led to their acquittal. The High Court did not believe the dying declaration on two grounds:
a) Two dying declarations had two days gap between them
b) When one dying declaration was already recorded, there was no reason for recording a second dying declaration.
6. The State had appealed before the Supreme Court against the judgement passed by the High Court.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Indian Penal Code 1860
- Section 34- When several persons commit an offense in furtherance of the common intention, each of them shall be liable for the offense in the same manner as if the act had been committed by a single person.
- Section 302- Punishes offence of murder with death penalty or life imprisonment.
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
- Section 161- Outlines police have to examine the witnesses.
ISSUES
The issue before Supreme Court was:
- Whether in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the court can rely upon the dying declaration for conviction?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
1. The dying statement recorded by the police officer was as per Section 161 of CrPC. Therefore, it was necessary to record the dying declaration of the deceased by the Magistrate.
2. The High Court had specifically observed that the first dying statement did not inspire any confidence. Medical evidence even did not support the version stated in the said dying declaration.
3. In the Laxman V. State of Maharashtra, 2002 case it was observed that the Magistrate was a disinterested witness and a responsible officer. Further, there were no circumstances or material to suspect that the Magistrate had any animus against the accused or was in any way interested in fabricating a dying declaration. So, no question of doubt was raised on the declaration recorded by the Magistrate.
4. In Jagbir Singh V. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 the Court had held that dying declarations could not be rejected merely on the grounds that multiple dying declarations were present. It was held that if multiple dying declarations were recorded, the cases would decide based on the facts and the Court would have the duty to carefully examine the entirety of the material on record along with the circumstances surrounding the making of the different dying declarations.
5. The High Court had neither doubted the credibility nor observed any malice in the dying statement recorded by the SDM without any cogent reason. Further, there was no record regarding the allegation against the SDM to the effect that he was biased or interested in recording the dying declaration against the accused.
6. In Paniben (Smt) v. State of Gujarat, 1992 it was held that there was Paniben (Smt) v. State of Gujarat, (1992) could not be acted upon without corroboration. If the Court was satisfied that the dying declaration was truthful and voluntary in nature, it would base its conviction on the dying declaration.
7. In Kushal Rao V. State of Bombay, 1958 the Court had laid down the principles for accepting dying declaration:
a) A dying declaration could be used as the sole basis of conviction.
b) The cases would be determined based on their facts along with the view of the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made.
c) The dying declaration was not considered as a weaker form of evidence than other pieces of evidence.
d) The dying declaration stood on the same tier as other evidence and had to be judged in light of the relevant circumstances and in accordance with the principles governing evidence weighing.
e) The dying declaration should be properly recorded by a competent Magistrate-in the form of questions and answers and in the words of the witness. It would have a higher value than a dying declaration relied on oral testimony that might have suffered from flaws of human memory and character.
f) The Court would have to observe the circumstances such as the circumstances to test the reliability of the dying declaration.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court considered the dying declaration recorded by the SDM and the respondents were convicted for the offenses punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The impugned judgment by the High Court of Allahabad was quashed and set aside and the judgement of the Trial Court was restored. The respondents were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
