Reiterating established principles on dying declarations, the Supreme Court has emphasized that while a credible dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction, it must inspire the full confidence of the court and be free from any suspicion of tutoring, prompting, or imagination. If there is any iota of suspicion, the court must look for corroboration.
The Apex Court ruled that an acquittal is justified when the prosecution’s case is founded entirely on a motive that is subsequently demolished during the trial and on multiple dying declarations that do not inspire confidence due to suspicious circumstances, the interested nature of witnesses, and gross deficiencies in the investigation.
An investigation that is selective, fails to examine crucial independent witnesses, does not conduct basic forensic analysis to rule out alternative causes of death, and is marked by procedural lapses like a delayed FIR, is fatal to the prosecution, added the Court.
Further, the Apex Court explained that a trial is vitiated and causes incurable injustice if the court fails to put each specific piece of incriminating evidence to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is not a ‘maybe true’ but a ‘must be true’, established by legal, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence leading to a finding of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused by the High Court was affirmed.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the First Information Statement (FIS), treated as a dying declaration, was deemed unreliable because it was recorded late, contained a long narrative improbable for a grievously burned person to give, and was recorded in the presence of relatives without any medical certification of the victim’s fitness.
The second written declaration, recorded by the Block Development Officer, was also disbelieved due to contradictions regarding who wrote it, the presence of relatives during its recording, and the absence of a medical certificate about the victim’s condition, despite a doctor being present, added the Bench.
The Bench also found the oral dying declarations to be not credible, and noted that the witnesses were interested parties. The prosecution failed to examine the crucial witness, the woman whose shouts first alerted the neighbours to the fire. Other independent witnesses who helped take the victim to the hospital were also not examined. Further, the Investigating Officer (IO) did not draw up a scene mahazar and failed to conduct any forensic examination of the site to determine the cause of the fire, leaving the defence theory of an accidental gas cylinder explosion un-investigated.
Moving ahead, the Bench found that there was a significant delay in registering the FIR, which was done only after the police had already visited the crime scene where numerous villagers were present. This delay cast suspicion on the conduct of the IO. Also, the investigation did not establish that the accused were present in the vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the incident.
The Bench also noted that the prosecution’s entire case was founded on the motive of a property dispute. This motive was however demolished by the testimony of the appellant himself, who stated in court that he was willing to give his brother (the accused) his 50% share of the property, thereby negating the cause for enmity. The documents produced to prove prior enmity were also held to be suspect as they were not properly seized or made part of the record by the IO.
Briefly, the case involves the death of a lawyer, Sarangdhar Singh, and his wife, Kamala Devi, after their shanty was gutted by fire in the early hours of November 23, 2016. The husband died immediately at the scene, while his wife succumbed to her injuries two days later in a hospital. The deceased couple’s younger son (accused 1) and daughter-in-law (accused 2) were accused of setting the house on fire with the intent to murder the parents.
The prosecution’s case was primarily built on the motive of a property dispute, alleging that the son harbored ill-will against his father for not giving him his due share in the ancestral property. The prosecution relied on multiple dying declarations, both written and oral, allegedly made by the deceased wife, implicating the accused.
The defence put forth inconsistent stances, suggesting that a neighbour who managed the deceased’s properties had colluded with the elder son to commit the murder, and alternatively, that the fire was accidental, caused by a bursting cooking gas cylinder. Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted the son and daughter-in-law. However, the High Court acquitted them, leading the elder son of the deceased to approach the Supreme Court.
Appearances:
AOR Smarhar Singh, along with Advocates Rajesh Kumar, Shweta Kumari, Pankaj Prakash, Mohd Asim, Manoj Kumar, and Yash Thakur, for the Appellant
Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, AORs Azmat Hayat Amanullah and Vikas Singh Jangra, along with Advocates Rebecca Mishra, Ekta Kundu, and Om Prakash Singh, for the Respondent
