Citation: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 476, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 15
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Date of Judgment: January 7, 2020
Appellants: (1) Purshottam Chopra
(2) Suresh
1. FACTS
On December 18, 1997, Sher Singh was discovered suffering severe burns at a locality in Uttam Nagar, Delhi. He had been rushed to Safdarjung Hospital with 100% deep burn injuries. He died early on the next day, December 19, 1997. Two statements which Sher Singh made prior to his death were the dying declarations, on which the police solely depended.
The first statement was recorded when his MedicoLegal Case (MLC) was being prepared before Dr. Sushma (PW-8). The doctor recorded that he was conscious and oriented. He mentioned that Purshottam and Suresh (whom he referred as a telwala) threatened to kill him, doused him with kerosene and burnt him.
The latter more detailed one was taken down by SI Rajesh Kumar (PW-16) few hours later. Prior to this other Physician (PW-17) had passed off a certificate that Sher Singh was fit to speak. In this statement, Sher Singh gave full names, address and position of Purshottam and Suresh. He said, Suresh had emptied the kerosene on him and then he had lit the matchstick and Purshottam was present with him too. He also thumb marked this statement.
On the basis of those declarations, Purshottam and Suresh were arrested. They were both found guilty of the murder by the lower and Delhi High court. That case was appealed in Apex Court.
2. ISSUES RAISED
There were some critical issues on which the Supreme Court had to arrive at a decision:
1. Could these two statements of Sher Singh be regarded as the dying declaration and the sole basis to prove Purshottam and Suresh guilty?
2. Did the 100 percent burn tender body and the health of Sher Singh being in a danger-zone and or that the judge (Magistrate) was not around when his statements were being taken make him/his statements unreliable?
3. Can the evidence that depicts that a different witness has submitted his testimony which suggests that Sher Singh burned himself be taken as the real first statement which would go against the statements against the accused?
4. Did it bother the prosecution that they were unable to demonstrate a clear reason (motive) of the crime, or that Purshottam did not personally commit the act of burning?
3. CONTENTIONS
Arguments by Purshottam and Suresh (The Appellants):
- They said that Sher Singh was injured so badly and had so much of pain that he could not make clear statements. They also disputed the thumb impression on the statement owing to the fact that his body was badly burnt. They also indicated that, there was no Magistrate, indicating that the police could have interfered with the statements. They pointed out that the first record of the hospital (OPD card) was not provided and that Sher Singh had said that he had consumed alcohol but this was not indicated on his post-mortem.
- They assured that there was a witness by the name Rajesh (PW-6) who made a statement that Sher Singh had informed everyone present at the place that he caused himself to go up in flames because he was dropped by a tempo. The defence claimed this was the actual initial assertion and this is what should be believed.
- They argued that the police were unable to show any justification as to why they would commit a crime of that nature indicating that they were innocent.
- They reasoned that in case they did it in a crowded market with a single exit, they would have been noticed by someone in case they were the ones. The absence of eye-witnesses turned the police story questionable.
- In the case of Purshottam in particular, they maintained that the statements did not say that he poured kerosene or that he lit the fire but merely that he was present; hence, he cannot be guilty of murder.
Arguments by the State (The Respondent):
- The State maintained that both the dying statements were valid and similar. In their emphasis they noted that doctors attested to the fact that though injured, Sher Singh was conscious and oriented, and able to speak.
- The State emphasized that the type of detailed information provided by Sher Singh (names, addresses, occupations) could have been given only by him; it is also impossible that some outside influence occurred.
- They made the court aware that the law holds that a dying declaration can be a sole basis to a conviction and that whether the burns were too severe or the Magistrate was not present, does not in itself render this a fatal flaw.
- The State elaborated that the evidence presented by witness Rajesh (PW-6) regarding self-immolation was incoherent and not reliable and even Rajesh himself contradicted it later.
- The State maintained that sometimes they need not establish a certain motive to convict particularly when there is a strong direct evidence such as dying declarations.
- In the case of Purshottam, the State was asserting that since he was with Suresh at the scene and both of them had intention to commit the crime together, due to which they will be treated as guilty under Section 34 IPC.
4. RATIONALE
The Supreme Court examined all the evidence and arguments through and through and it affirmed conviction of murder in both of the appellants. Here’s why:
- The Court found both of the dying statements to be very reliable. They were voluntary, consistent and transparent. Doctors testified that despite severe burns, Sher Singh was proven to be endowed with reasoning, i.e. conscious and able to speak, the Court stressed. The Court repeated that the level of injuries would not necessarily imply that a person would not make a convincing statement; what matters is his or her mind.
- The Court affirmed that although the practice of a judge (Magistrate) recording the dying declaration is good practice in the realms of authenticity, it is not a legal obligation. An oral statement made by a police officer or a doctor which is found to be reliable is admissible.
- The Court felt that the testimony of the witness Rajesh (PW-6) regarding self-immolation was not reliable. They observed that he was not consistent and had after the event claimed that Sher Singh had not made that statement in his presence.
- The Court held that lack of well established motive is not a factor to overturn a conviction, especially when there is a good degree of evidentiary value such as credible dying declarations.
- The Court held that Purshottam was also guilty of murder under Section 34 IPC because of his presence and his participation in the conspiracy with Suresh (as narrated by the dying victim) despite the fact he did not actually set him on fire.
5. DEFECTS OF LAW / APPLICATION
Although the final decision made by the Supreme Court restores justice and puts a clear understanding of the legal principles that are crucial, some elements still remain problematic or could be improved in managing such a case in the future:
- Police-Recorded Dying Declaration Without Independent Witness
- It is however necessary to note that a dying declaration recorded by the police officer alone, when a judicial officer (Magistrate) could have been brought in to take the statement is still open to criticism as far as sheer impartiality is concerned. Although the Court observed that there was no fabrication in this case, the fact that no other independent witness (such as a neutral employee of the hospital, not including the certifying doctor) was present when the police recorded the full detailed statement (Ex. PW-16/B) by, can always provide an opportunity into which speculative defense theories regarding the actual verbatim nature of the statement can creep.
- Fitness to Make Statement in Extreme Pain
- The doctors testified as to Sher Singh being “conscious, oriented, and fit to make statement.” But the unbearable pain due to hundred percent burn wounds as even the PW-18 who accompanied the patient to the hospital reported that he was merely crying due to the pain, is a complicated case. Although consciously as a matter of law is important, lost in allofthat, but hard to break into court is the psychological effect of such trauma on clarity and comprehensiveness of a dying declaration, of a dying declaration not followed by the word especially of a detailed one. The judgment is right when it says that burn percentage is not the only factor involved but the depth of the sustained pain may unconsciously influence the specified information.
- Missing Initial OPD Card
- The defence expressed the concerns that the initial OPD card which is the first document that is generated in case a patient is admitted was not produced. Although this was rejected by the Court as that can have been called in by the defence, yet its omission may be sometimes used as one of the missing links in the whole chain of medical record, which ought to be without any break in serious cases such as this.
- Ambiguity of Thumb Impression
- The thumb impression was accepted by the Court under the possibility of the ridges remaining undamaged even in the instances of 100 percent burns. But the post-mortem report had observed, peeling of skin on the back of hands. Though not opposing in any direct sense, a more direct expert confirmation in the forensic sense or more specific medical expert witness on the actual state of the thumb to be used as impression instead of general possibility, may have further strengthened this key element of evidence against possible reconsiderations.
- Unaccounted Alcohol Differences
– The Court disregarded the differences between the testimony of the deceased which stated that he had drunk half a bottle of liquor and the post-mortem report that there was no alcohol. Although it is not wrong that in a severe burn case the internal organs could be congested, a lack of alcohol, particularly, after a declared drunkard of half a bottle could be discussed in more details. He/she consumes alcohol which is metabolised by the body, though some may be detected hours later. This inconsistency, when it is not medically cleared up properly, can always cast doubts regarding the truth of what the victim perceived or remembered during the declaration though does not necessarily defame consciousness altogether. It throws a shadow of doubt over one statement of a single fact in the dying declaration and the shadow of doubt cannot be termed as a shadow of little consequence.
6. INFERENCE
The Purshottam Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Case is an extremely valuable case decision regarding “dying declarations” in India. It is a very strong confirmation that in case the words of a dying individual are shown to be truthful and were uttered freely and the individual is in full consciousness of what he is saying, then it can suffice to convict even in hard cases with serious injuries. The case clarifies that the intensity of wounds or lack of a judge when recording is done is not a one-on-one pass that makes a dying declaration invalid. Instead, there should be the consideration of whether that person who has been dying was at a healthy state of mind to tell the truth.
The case also explains the operation of the common intention (Section 34 IPC), and is one of the earliest cases that makes it clear that people are in a joint plan to commit a crime, they should be equally punished, even though they may not have carried out the brutal act.
Briefly, This Case has great legal considerations to the courts in the response to dying declarations. It focuses on justice that is driven by valid evidence, more so when the last verbal utterances of the deceased victim are working points of successful crime-solving.
Written By Aryan Jain, An intern under Amikus Qriae