By Priyanshi Ekka
Student at Dharmashastra National Law University
INTRODUCTION
In Phulel Singh v. The State of Haryana[1], Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2010, a three-judge Supreme Court bench made up of Justices B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra rendered a decision on September 27, 2023, holding that the accused should be found not guilty because the prosecution was unable to provide any proof to support its claims that the deceased’s death was caused by the appellant’s failure to fulfill the dowry demand.
“Nemo morituru spraesumitur mentire,” a man will not meet his maker with a falsehood in his mouth, gives rise to the idea that statements made by the dying are acceptable as proof.
In the present case, the appellant is requesting relief from a conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code that was handed down by the Hon’ble Trial Court and then upheld by the Hon’ble High Court. The case centers on the deceased person’s unfortunate demise and claims of harassment relating to dowries[2]. While the Respondent insists that justice has been done, the Appellant makes strong arguments to support his claim that the convictions were unfair. This court has a big job to do, and to make sure the Appellant’s conviction was fair and lawful, the following arguments and supporting documentation will be closely scrutinized.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The deceased was married to appellant in March 1987, and a daughter and a son were born out of this marriage. The deceased was harassed by the appellant on the account of inadequate dowry. To fulfil these demands of the appellant, Rs. 20,000 was paid to him in cash by the deceased’s parents. Further in 1990, they gave him a scoter and gold ornaments weighing 2.5-3 tolas. The deceased, whenever she visited her parental house would tell her parents and brothers about all the ill-treatment and harassment which she faced in the appellant’s house. She refused to stay in the appellant’s house. The deceased was not given the required care, even though Mohan Singh, the deceased’s father-in-law Jora Singh’s son-in-law. Had assured him of this.
In 1991, few day prior to Diwali, Pavitar Singh (PW 3), brother of the deceased, paid her a vist at her residence in Village Chatha. The deceased informed Pavitar Singh (PW 3) about the harassment in lieu of demand for dowry, he then informed this incident to the parents. Randir Singh (PW 4), father of the deceased urged to Major Singh (PW 6), Sarpanch of his village to visit the appellant’s house for counselling following Diwali.
On 5th November 1991, on the occasion of Diwali, Dr. Sharma of Bhgwanghar informed the family member of the deceased that she had been burnt and was been taken to Ludhiana. Subsequently, Pavitar Singh (PW 3), Randhir Singh (PW 4) and cousin Gur Raj Singh reached Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital where the deceased was admitted. On the same day, Dr. Jasmeet Singh Dhir (PW 7), the Medical Officer at Hospital, opined that she had suffered 91% burns on her body. On 7th November, 1991, the deceased gain conscious, she, in front of Pavitar Singh (PW 3) and others stated that the appellant had set her on fire. This resulted in the filing of FIR (Ext. P.D./1) against Jora Singh, father-in-law of the deceased, the appellant, Dhan Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased. The charges included offence punishable under Section 498-A, 307, 406 and 34 IPC. On 18th November 1991, at 6.00 p.m, Dr. Jatinder Pal Singh (PW 8) informed regading the death of the deceased to the Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.
A charge-sheet was submitted to the Magistrate’s jurisdictional court after the completion of investigation. The accused reject charges of harassment and dowry extortion made against the deceased and stated that these allegations were false. Additionally, they denied that the deceased was burnt by them.
The three accused were found guilty by the experienced trial court of the crime punishable by Section 304-B IPC and s rigorous punishment for a period of seven years along with fine. However, due to the benefit of doubt, they were acquitted of the said charges under Section 302 IPC. The accused persons, filed an appeal before the High Court but the court confirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court.
Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present case.
ISSUE RAISED
Was the appellant’s conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, as decided by the Hon’ble Trial Court and High Court, reasonable and lawful?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
The appellant argued that the appellant’s conviction was a result of error made by both the Trial Court and the High Court. There is conflict as regard to the dying declaration made by the deceased, it is a hard question to rely upon it. The doctor states that, when the deceased was first admitted to the hospital, the deceased told him that she had tried to kill herself and it was the appellant who tried to put out the fire. Therefore, the courts should not have taken onto account to consider the following dying declaration that was recorded three to four days after the incident. Furthermore, it is claimed that the deceased’s relatives had influenced the latter dying declaration and a conviction based upon it would not be legal.
The appellant urged that there is no sufficient proof to establish that the deceased was harassed because of the demands of dowry. The remarks made by the relatives of the deceased doesn’t add up to prove harassment. Furthermore, the prosecution’s evidence is disapproved by independent witness Major Singh (PW-6), the village sarpanch.
The Appellant’s counsel placed reliance upon legal precedents such as Makhan Sinh v. State of Haryana[3].
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
The prosecution has established the case beyond a reasonable doubt, according to the respondent. They contend that an Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration[4] and that Dr. Jatinder Pal Singh (PW-8) attested to the deceased’s mental capacity at the time of the statement. They therefore argue that there is no reason to contest the conviction based on this declaration.
The respondent argued that the testimony of the deceased’s close relatives, PWs 3 and 4, along with Major Singh (PW-6), the village sarpanch, clearly demonstrated that the deceased was harassed because the dowry[5] demands were not met. In light of this, the Respondent asks that the current appeal be dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
After giving the case some thought, the Honorable Supreme Court granted the appeal. This results in the annulment of the trial court’s September 14, 1999, verdict and conviction, which the High Court upheld in its contested July 24, 2009 ruling. All accusations against the appellant were dropped, and his bail bonds were released.
The judicial panel consisting of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narsimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra Court brought to light the notable differences in the way the High Court managed the final will and testament. The Honorable Supreme Court upheld long-standing legal precedents that a conviction may be entered only on the basis of a dying declaration, but it also stated that in doing so, the court must determine if the dying declaration is dependable, credible, and encourages confidence[6].
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted the appeal after carefully weighing the arguments put out by the Respondent and the Appellant. It has been decided that the appellant’s conviction under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by the Honorable Trial Court and High Court was unfair and illegal. As a result, the appellant is cleared of all accusations and the judgment and conviction have been overturned. The appellant’s bail bonds are discharged as a result of this order.
In the Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana case, the Supreme Court (SC) underlined how crucial it is to make sure a deathbed declaration is dependable, trustworthy, and inspires confidence when it is the only foundation for a criminal conviction.
While Section 113 B of the IEA discusses the court’s presumption in the event of a dower death, Section 304B of the IPC contains the clause about dower deaths.
COMMENT
In India, dowery is said to have a significant role in the violence against women that is reported. Physical abuse, emotional torture, and even the murder of young girls and brides before marriage are some of these offenses. The most common categories of dowry crimes are those involving cruelty (torture and harassment), domestic violence (physical, emotional, and sexual abuse), aiding and abetting suicide, and dowry death (bride burning and murder).
Dowry murders and dowry deaths refer to the killing or suicide of a bride by her husband and his family shortly after the marriage as a result of their displeasure with the dowry. Usually, it is the last in a line of earlier atrocities committed against the wife by her family.
The majority of dowry killings happen when the young lady kills herself by hanging or taking poison because she can no longer stand the harassment and torture. Bride burning, in which the husband or his family douses the bride in kerosene and sets her ablaze, is another type of dower death.
Sometimes the bride ends up burning herself on fire as a result of their encouragement to take their own life. Other dowry killings include female foeticide committed by parents who refuse to pay for their daughter’s dowry when she reaches adulthood and sex-selective abortions. Because of the dowry system, daughters are sometimes viewed as financial responsibilities.
According to section 304-B (2) of the IPC, dowry death perpetrators face a minimum sentence of 7 years in jail, with the possibility of a life sentence. This case revolves around ‘Dowry Death’. The allegations of dowry death were made upon the appellants. Due to lack of sufficient evidence, it is difficult to decide if the allegations made of harassment made in lieu of dowry were true or not. The appellants urged the Supreme Court to check the legality of the conviction and rigorous punishment. The Supreme Cout acquitted them.
In the present case, there is a conflict as regard to the legality of the dying declaration. A dying declaration is admissible as evidence and can serve as the only foundation for conviction, according to established legal doctrine. The Supreme Court noted in State of U. P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) that the court’s main goal is to determine the veracity of the deathbed declaration. If so, there is no need to consider confirmation. The court may only seek confirmation of the deathbed pronouncement for its own peace of mind if the circumstances surrounding it are unclear or unpersuasive.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the established legal principle in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Veerapal and Others (2022) that a deathbed declaration cannot serve as the exclusive foundation for a conviction unless it is verified. Every case needs to be evaluated based on its unique facts while taking the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration into consideration. The opportunity for the dying man to be observed that is, when there was enough light for the crime to be committed his ability to recall the details, the consistency of his statements, and the fact that he made them at that earlier opportunity without the help of interested parties are all considerations that the court must take into account when evaluating the dying man’s declaration of faith.
[1] Phulel Singh v. The State of Haryana, (2023) 10 SCC 268
[2] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 304-B
[3] Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, 2015 (12) SCC 247
[4] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 32
[5] The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, § 2, No. 28 of 1961
[6] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, § 32