Citation: 6 SCC 213(2021)
Bench: CJI N. V. Ramana, Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Criminal Appeal No: 573 of 2016
Date of Judgment: May 07, 2021.
Legal Provisions /Acts: The Evidence Act 187, The Indian Penal Code 1860 and The code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
FACTS
1. Both the parties of the case were very much related to each other and there had been a long standing animosity going on for a long time between the families of Jayamma, who is the wife of Reddinaika (appellant No. 1) and the family of Jayamma (respondent/ Deceased), wife of Sanna Ramanaika. Due to a previous issue the parties were in a disagreement and during the heated argument the appellant party poured kerosene on Jayamma(deceased) and set her on fire. The screams of Jayamma which were heard by her son Ravi Kumar (PW-2) and Daughter-in-law Saroja Bai (PW-5) rushed to the scene tried to set off the fire. In the meantime, the appellants ran away from the scene. Then Jayamma was admitted to a “public health entre”.
2. Jayamma was given the primary basic treatment and pain killers for the injuries by Dr A. Thippeswamy (PW-16). Later a medico-legal case was then sent to the Thalak police station which was received by the SHO K. V. Mallikarjunappa (PW-11) who reached the hospital to record the statement. Jayamma gave her statement in which she had implicated the whole appellant party and hence a criminal case filed under “sections 307, 504, 114” read along with “section 34” of the IPC on them. Later, on September 23, Jayamma passed away, and the post-mortem report was submitted as that she died due to shock which came from the result of her injuries.
3. The appellants got arrested, and then were presented before the trial court, during the procedure all the witnesses turned hostile except PW-11 and PW-16. The issue then that was presented and questioned before the court was whether Jayamma’s death was suicidal or homicidal. It was then noted by the court that the only substantial evidence present is the dying declaration of the deceased connecting the accused. Further upon considering the mitigating circumstances, hostile witnesses and the evidence of PW-11 and PW-16 being vague and unsatisfactory the trial court acquitted the appellants.
4. During the High Court hearing the appeal was reversed and held that the evidence consisting of dying declaration is sufficient enough to prove the guilt by the nature and definition of dying declaration in itself states its validity and consequently has convicted the appellants to a sentence of life imprisonment under sec 302 read with sec 34 of IPC.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Weather the High Court’s decision was right in reversing the decision taken by the trial court under sec 378?
2. Weather it was successfully proven that Jayamma’s death was suicidal or homicidal in nature?
CONTENTION
Contention on behalf of the Appellants
1. The principle contention raised by the appellants through their counsel was that the High Court’s Order was cryptic and has erroneously reversed the well-reasoned order of the acquittal passed by the trial court.
2. The appellants counsel also added that it was a difficult duty to scrutinize the evidence on record and should be returned into a categorical and cogent finding as to why it was impossible to sustain the order passes by trial court.
3. They have stated that the court failed to evaluate the entire evidence and also haven’t dealt with the specific finding of the trial court which was the courts obligation under the sec. 378 of CrPC.
4. They have questioned the credibility of the sole evidence in the question which was the dying declaration by stating some previous judgments (1), (2) and have argued that the absence of a medical certificate attesting to the mental fitness of the deceased before the recording of statement proves it inadmissible.
5. As they have failed to establish any actual motive in the case it was argued that the conviction of the appellants was untenable.
Contention on behalf of the Respondents
1. The state counsel has supported the conviction awarded by the High Court.
2. It was stated by highlighting the paragraphs 4 and 6 of the impugned order and suggested that the court has given a well-reasoned judgment and has also buttressed it with specific reasons of acquittal.
3. The Judgment (3) was mentioned as support to say that even in case of a hundred percent burn injuries the court can rely upon on dying declaration itself alone to convict the accused.
RATIOINALE
The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination and considering the case’s details, has had the concerns about the reliability of Jayamma’s statements. They noted that Jayamma was in severe physical and mental distress, which made it unlikely for her to provide an accurate interpretation of the incident. Even if she were stable at the time, it was pointed that her limited literacy would hinder her ability to explain the situation so much precisely. Furthermore, the delay in informing the magistrate about her statements, despite her surviving for almost 30 hours, raised a serious suspicion. Additionally, a doctor (PW-16) and a police officer(PW-11), the only witnesses to her statements, were found to have tampered with the original document and were not in parallel terms with their own statements of what happened contradicting each other, hence casting doubt on the accuracy of her dying declaration.
This case highlighted several suspicions surrounding the dying declaration. There were questions about Jayamma’s mental and physical condition, given the severity of her burns, which made it difficult for her to provide an accurate statement. The Supreme Court had questions about upholding the conviction solely based on a dying declaration. They also believed that the High Court’s use of its powers under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not justified in this instance. Instead, they felt that the court should have been cautious about intervening, especially when the trial court itself had thoroughly examined all the material evidence and had likely formed a well-founded opinion based on the facts of the case.
Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s verdict and set aside the appellant’s conviction and was declared not guilty.
DEFECTS OF LAW
In this case or judgment the defects or shortcomings I have observed are, in a legal procedure and investigation that occur in a trial usually affect the outcome of a case and led it towards the conviction of an accused or the fate of parties who are yet to be proven as innocent. So the very same basic principle was proved to be out of order in this case along with some other issue. Dependence on a suspicious dying declaration was the first issue seen in the trial. The case seems to heavily rely on a dying declaration that, it was considered suspicious and potentially tampered with by a police officer. This raised doubts about the accuracy and credibility of the evidence used for conviction. Along with that the failure to consider the declarant’s capacity to give the statement was overlooked which was an elementary precaution. The court should have thoroughly considered the mental and physical condition of the declarant at the time of making the statement. It appears that the severe injuries and agony suffered by Jayamma were not adequately taken into account when assessing the reliability of the dying declaration.
Lack of any independent corroborative evidence has casted a doubt on the reliability of the conviction. In criminal cases, especially those based on dying declarations, it is crucial to have an independent corroborative evidence to support the claims made.
The principle that every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law was not effectively upheld. The hasty presumption of guilt in society and the subsequent torment of the accused and their family go against this fundamental legal principle and it was shown clearly in the case.
Another issue was that the case highlights errors and oversights in the investigation process, such as ignorance of crucial facts, evidence credibility and nature which can have a significant impact on the outcome. Thorough and accurate investigations are essential for ensuring justice in any trial. The biggest defect observed was the courts competency failed in administering the appeals property. While it was not explicitly mentioned, but the appeals were treated or declared hastily by a higher competency court that might have lead to conviction of parties who might have been innocent.
These defects in the legal process and investigation highlight the importance of a fair and thorough legal system that upholds the rights of the accused, considers all evidence objectively, and ensures that justice is served. It was shown clearly that addressing these defects is crucial to maintaining the legitimacy and credibility of the criminal justice system in such rare cases or occurrences and also trying to prevent wrongful convictions in the future.
INFERENCE
There has been a significant contemplation regarding how suspicious and malicious dying declarations should be handled with to ensure that justice is upheld. In cases where there are multiple conflicting pieces of evidence or contradictory dying declarations, it was proved as vital that the courts do not automatically favor the statement that accuses someone while disregarding statements that do not implicate the accused. It has reminded the basic principle that how no matter the circumstance each case must be assessed based on its own unique facts. If the incriminating dying declaration appears to be reliable, and the court has valid reasons to believe in its credibility, particularly with regard to the declarant’s condition at the time of making the statement, the court should take appropriate action.
Our criminal justice system places immense importance on its fundamental principle that “every individual is presumed as innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty” in a court of law during a criminal proceeding. However, it is also regrettable or inevitable that in our society, the opposite often occurs, where an accused person is impulsively declared guilty even before the court reaches a verdict. These kinds of swift judgments often lead to the torment and mental anguish of the innocent accused and their families often causing them to face significant suffering.
This case has served as a significant example and reminder of how a simple oversight in an investigation can completely turn a case on its head, affecting the lives and course of a case of innocent individuals who have committed no wrongdoing yet are convicted. If an innocent person is convicted due to an “error,” our criminal justice system should also be vigorous enough to ensure that the appeals process swiftly rectifying the conviction and restoring the credibility of the criminal justice system.
Citations
1. Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (2009) 1 RCR 368
2. Paparambaka Rosamma & ors v. State Of Andhra Pradesh (1999) 7 SCC 695
3. Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NTC of Delhi) 2015 (3) SCALE 283
4. Livelaw.in, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/jayamma-vs-state-of-karnataka-ll-2021-sc-251-393139.pdf (Last visited on Sep. 18, 2023)
5. Surbhi Jindal, Jayamma & anr v State of Karnataka: Supreme Court clarifies the law on dying declaration, Blog.ipleaders.in, (Last visited on Sep.18.2023) https://blog.ipleaders.in/jayamma-anr-v-the-state-of-karnataka-the-supreme-court-clarifies-the-law-on-dying-declaration/
N. Vamsi Laxman
Keshav Memorial Collage of Law, Hyderabad
Telangana