Case title:

“RAJARAM VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS.”

Date of Order:

16 December 2022

Bench:

S. RAVINDRA BHAT J. AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA J.

Parties:-

APPEALLANT : RAJARAM

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

S.302, 304-B, 307, 498-A R/W 34, IPC 

S.32 EVIDENCE ACT

S. 3, 4 of DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

JUDGMENT ANALYSIS

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On 23-April-2009, at about 10:00 AM, information was received by the hospital that a women had been brought by her husband in third degree burnt condition. Medico legal report of the injured woman (Pushpa, wife) was issued and her dying declaration was recorded. Multiple evidences such as kerosene oil, broken mangalsutra smelling of kerosene oil, matchstick box, etc were collected and statements of witnesses were recorded. Pushpa passed away on 10-April-2009 due to severe burn injuries as suggested by the post mortem report. After due investigation, police filed chargesheet under S. 302,307, 304-B, 498-A read with 34 of IPC and S. 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial Court framed charges under S.302 and 498-A in alternative S.304-B, IPC against Santi Bai and against other four accused under S. 498-A, 304-B, IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty. The Court convicted and sentenced Santi Bai for S.302 and others for S.498-A, IPC. The appellant and other accused challenged this order in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, where the appeal got rejected and S.498-A was affirmed. 

ISSUES RAISED: 

I-Dying Declaration without doctor’s medical certificate is admissible?

II-Which dying declaration is to be relied in case of multiple dying declarations?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:

the appellant submitted that the Court has fallen into error in relying dying declaration of the wife. The appellant also argued that the statements made by the deceased wife against the appellant Rajaram will be inadmissible as they were not of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death of the deceased. 

It was also submitted that the deceased wife’s own brother, father, sister and brother in law did not support the prosecution version, rendering the allegations and consequently the conviction unsustainable.

Additionally the validity of dying declaration was challenged by the appellant on grounds of suspicion that statements were not recorded after obtaining clearance from a doctor by way of medical certificate. The conscious state of mind of the maker of  dying declaration was put into question, as neither a medical certificate had been obtained nor the presence of a doctor was recorded at the time of making dying declaration.

Another point that was forwarded by the appellant was that since prosecution could not prove S.304-B, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of dying declaration, as the dying declaration does not mention any cruelty by the appellant (husband) which leads to her death.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT/STATE:

the respondents submitted that no inference with the concurrent findings is called for and that the appeal involves appreciation of evidences submitted. 

It was also submitted by the prosecution that Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to upset the findings of the Court subordinate to it.

The prosecution revealed that thee has been two dying declarations by the deceased wherein the first dying declaration reveals the persons dousing the deceased with kerosene oil and setting her on fire.  Subsequent dying declaration on the other hand unveils that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for various reasons, like, giving birth to a girl child instead of a boy, for dowry, and for the disability that the deceased possessed. As per the prosecution, there is close proximity between the two  dying declarations.

Further, prosecution strongly submitted that firstly, presence of a doctor is not a prerequisite for making a  dying declaration and secondly, the such absence cannot ipso facto result in it being ruled out.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS: 

Issue I- The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered all averments made before it and held that the utility of a dying declaration depends upon the surrounding facts and  circumstances along with the evidence brought before it. 

No stereotypical approach can be attached to where a medical certificate was obtained before recording of the statements.

The Apex Court referred to the case of Laxman V. State of Maharashtra in which a five judge bench laid that, the evidentiary value which is to be attached to a dying declaration solely depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The only quintessential is that the person recording the dying declaration must be satisfied that the maker was in a fit sate of mind to make a dying declaration. When a Magistrate is satisfied that the maker is in a fit state of mind then even without a doctor’s medical certificate, such dying declaration can be acted upon, provided that such dying declaration has been truthfully as well as voluntarily made and such a dying declaration is not a result of tutoring or prompting.

Issue II-The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the case of Lakhan V. State of Madhya Pradesh and laid that when there exists multiple dying declarations, then the  dying declaration which is

• True and voluntarily made
• Made in fir state of mind
• Is not a result of duress, tutoring or prompting

Then such dying declaration does not require corroboration and can be made the sole basis for convicting the accused. 

When multiple dying declarations contains inconsistent facts, then dying declaration recorded by the higher authority, like a magistrate is to be relied upon, provided there is no doubt or suspicion as to its truthfulness.

In the present case, the Supreme Court also cited the case of Jagbir Singh V. NCT Delhi which laid down several essential rules in regard to multiple dying declarations, which are enunciated below:

• If dying declaration inspire confidence then it can be made a sole basis for conviction of the accused.
• Corroboration is not a sine qua non when there exists no suspicion with regard to the dying declaration.
• The Court should critically analyse the dying declaration to rule out any chances of tutoring, prompting or undue influence upon the maker.
• Since the person making the dying declaration is in expectation of death, that is to say, is dying due to either possible injury or disease then the Court must see that the statements made in dying declaration by such person is not a matter of imagination or hallucination.
• Evidences submitted (both oral and documentary) must be in connection and alignment with the reality and truth must be gathered from the established facts submitted before the Court.
• In case of multiple dying declarations which are inconsistent to each other, then the extent of such inconsistencies have to be critically seen by the Court.
• The Court must consider the material on record when the inconsistencies in the dying declarations is incriminatory to the accused, in order to determine which dying declaration is to be relied upon.
• In case of multiple dying declarations with absolute inconsistencies which are repugnant to each other, or which have two totally opposing statements then the question does not arise as to which dying declaration was made earlier. Here, the dying declaration which was relied upon by the prosecution to convict should also be seen.

HELD:

Test of Credibility with regard to overall facts on record, has to be adopted.

In the first dying declaration, the appellant had nowhere been named and it the first dying declaration relates only upto the extend of pouring kerosene on the deceased and setting her on fire. 

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh discredited the second dying declaration on the basis of doubtfulness of the fit state of maker and laid that it cannot be relied upon as the police mentioned in their statements “her condition is very bad.” 

Thereby leaving the Court to decide the matter on the basis of the first dying declaration. The Court laid that S.498-A is not attracted towards the appellant and the only evidence against the appellant was discredited by the High Court (dying declaration No.2). It was held that there is nothing on record to sustain his conviction and sentence.

Thus appellants conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was directed to be released. The appeal was allowed without order to any cost.

CONCLUSION:  

the Apex Court concluded that it is the facts and circumstances of each case which are to be strictly analysed while convicting the accused on the basis of a dying declaration. If such declaration is true and has been made voluntarily then the Court can rely solely upon it to convict the accused, even in the absence of a medical certificate by a doctor. In cases where there clouds a doubt as to the truthfulness of the declaration, like in the present case then it becomes unsafe to rely upon suspicious statements and a need to corroborate the dying declaration with evidences emerges in order to meet the needs of justice.