Court: The Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2022
Appellant: State of Jharkhand
Respondent: Shailendra Kumar Rai
Bench: Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice Hima Kohli
Date Decided: 31st October, 2022
Facts of the Case
From the dying declaration given by the deceased victim, the facts of this case were admitted. As per the dying declaration; the respondent entered the victim’s house and raped her on 7th November 2004. He threatened her with life if she dared call for help. She cried for help anyway, so the respondent splashed kerosene on her and set her ablaze with a matchstick. On hearing her cries, her mother, grandfather, and a village resident rushed to the scene, leading the respondent to flee. They put out the fire and rushed her to the Saddar Hospital, where she was admitted. During examination ‘two-finger test’ was conducted to find out the possibility of rape. It was discovered that two fingers were easily admitted. Meanwhile, the police recorded her statement, as her health was rapidly deteriorating.
A chargesheet under Sections 307,[1] 341,[2] 376[3] and 448[4] of the IPC was filed against the respondent. The victim passed away on 14th December 2004, which led to the filing of one more chargesheet against the respondent for an offence under section 302[5] of the IPC. The respondent was convicted by the Sessions Court for the mentioned offences and sentenced to rigorous punishment for life under section 302[6] of the IPC and for rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years under section 376[7] of the IPC, where both sentences were to run concurrently. The accused appealed to the High Court, which overturned the Sessions Court’s decision, stating that the statement of the deceased could not consider a dying declaration under Section 32(1)[8] of the Indian Evidence Act and that the medical team could not definitely report any sign of rape. Hence the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136[9] of the Indian Constitution to challenge the High Court’s order.
Issues Raised
- Whether the statement made by the deceased before the Police Officer is relevant as a dying declaration under section 32(1)[10] of the Indian Evidence Act 1872?
- Whether the prosecution has established its case by proving the respondent guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
Contention
It was contended by the Counsel for the appellant that the High Court’s judgement was not based on the proper appreciation of facts and evidence. He stated that Dr R.K. Pandey was actually examining a patient on a table right next to the one where the deceased had given her dying declaration to the police officer and not in a room which was next to the room where the deceased was admitted. Thus, the High Court had misunderstood the facts. He further contended that the deceased’s post-mortem was conducted within 12 hours of her expiration. It was observed that her death was caused by ‘septicemia’, which occurred because of her burn injuries.
The opposite counsel representing the respondent refused the appellant’s claims, contending that there was no other evidence to corroborate the statement made by the accused that the respondent had raped her. The medical report given by the medical staff mentioned that no definite opinion could be given as to whether the deceased had been raped or not. He further pleaded that the deceased’s death occurred about a month after the alleged incident. Therefore, the statement made by her cannot be considered a dying declaration.
Rationale
- The statement made by the deceased is relevant as a dying declaration under section 32(1)[11] of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
The High Court overturned the Sessions court’s decision, stating that the medical team discovered no definite sign of rape. Also, it stated that the deceased’s statement could not be held as a dying declaration. The Supreme Court acknowledged that in support of this statement, the High Court referred to the judgement of Moti Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh.[12] In this case, the accused was alleged to have shot the victim. The victim was admitted to a hospital, treated for injuries, and discharged. After a few weeks of getting treated for gunshot wounds, the victim died. The deceased was cremated before his post-mortem could be conducted. Thus, the Court believed that the cause of death could not be ascertained, and thus, it was held that the deceased’s statement was not valid to be treated as a dying declaration. The supreme Court declared that the reliance of the High Court on the case of Moti Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh[13] is erroneous as in the mentioned case, the cause of the victim’s death was unclear, but in the present case, it has been proved by the medical reports that the victim’s death was because of septicemia due to the burn injuries sustained by her. Regarding how she sustained burn injuries, it is clear from the statement made by the victim to the police wherein she stated that the accused doused her in kerosene and set her ablaze with a matchstick. Thus, the medical record of the deceased stating the cause of death corroborates the statement made by the deceased. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the statement made by the deceased was relevant and admissible as a dying declaration under section 32(1)[14] of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. To further support its conclusion, the Supreme Court relied on the ruling that “no rule states that a dying declaration is inadmissible when recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate.”[15]
- The prosecution has, beyond a reasonable doubt, proved the accusations against the respondent.
The Supreme Court stated that the dying declaration of the deceased made it evident that the accused had raped her, poured kerosene on her, and set her ablaze to the injuries of which she later succumbed and passed away. It further stated that there was no need to question the dying declaration’s authenticity as nothing on record would contradict the accused’s guilt. The Supreme Court relied on the judgement of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav,[16] wherein this Court had stated that “there is neither a rule of law nor a rule of prudence that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated.” The medical report of the deceased, which stated that no opinion could be given, was addressed as the lack of medical evidence does not provide that no rape was committed. The dying declaration of the deceased clearly stated that rape was committed upon her by the accused, which the Court accepted. To support this conclusion, it referred to the judgment in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra,[17] This Court held that the opinion of a medical expert is only advisory and could not be held conclusive to the existence of any fact. Therefore, it was held that the accused was guilty of the alleged crime, and the High Court was mistaken in overruling the Sessions Court judgement. The Court of Sessions had sentenced the accused to rigorous life imprisonment under Section 302[18] of the Indian Penal Code and for rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, with both sentences to run concurrently. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overruled the High Court judgment, and upheld the accused’s sentence as per the Sessions Court’s Judgement.
Defects of Law
The High Court ignored misinterpreted specific facts, due to which the application of law in pronouncing its judgement was erroneous, which led to the appeal to the Supreme Court. In the first instance, it was misunderstood that Doctor R.K. Pandey was seeing a patient in the room next to that of the deceased was admitted. However, he was seeing a patient on the table next to the deceased’s in the same room. He thus witnessed the dying declaration of the deceased before the police officer. Also, the High Court erroneously referred to the judgement in Moti Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh.[19] It was erroneous as the victim’s cause of death was not found in this case because he was cremated before his post-mortem was conducted. But, in the present case, the cause of death was known. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, the judgement of the case would not be relevant in the present case.
Inference
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and upheld the Sessions Court’s original decision. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had understood and ignored certain important facts, leading to an incorrect and defective decision. The Supreme Court pointed out that a dying declaration can be considered even if it was made before a police officer instead of a Magistrate. It does not need to be in a question-and-answer format. The Court also criticised using the “two-finger test” as it violates women’s right to privacy, is sexist and unethical, and has no scientific basis to prove whether a woman had been raped. The Court ruled that no rape victim should ever be subjected to this test.
Ahmad Basaud
Central University of Kashmir
[1] Section 307, Indian Penal Code (1860)
[2] Ibid, Section 341
[3] Ibid, Section 376
[4] Ibid, Section 448
[5] Ibid, Section 302
[6] Ibid
[7] Supra note 3
[8] Section 32(1), Indian Evidence Act (1872)
[9] Article 136, Constitution of India (1950)
[10] Supra note 8
[11] Ibid
[12] Moti Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 900
[13] Ibid
[14] Supra note 8
[15] State of Karnataka v. Shariff, (2003) 2 SCC 473
[16] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552
[17] Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 283
[18] Supra note 5
[19] Supra note 12