Supreme Court of India
AMOL SINGHversusSTATE OF M.P.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 685
- Decided
- 15 May 2008
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
If multiple dying declarations contain material inconsistencies, they are unreliable and cannot form the sole basis for conviction.
Summary
Amol Singh and another were convicted for the murder of Saraswati Bai under IPC s.302 r.w. s.34. The deceased gave two dying declarations, one recorded by an ASI and another by an Executive Magistrate, which differed on the motive and the manner of being doused with kerosene. The High Court held the variations insignificant and upheld the conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether material inconsistencies in multiple dying declarations render them unreliable. Finding the discrepancies material and the later declaration doubtful, the Court held that such declarations cannot be relied upon without corroboration and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether multiple dying declarations containing material inconsistencies can be relied upon to sustain a conviction.
- Whether the inconsistencies between the two dying declarations in this case are material.
- Whether conviction under IPC s.302 r.w. s.34 can be based solely on such dying declarations.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 684
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 307, s. 34
Subjects
dying declarationmaterial inconsistencyreliability of evidencemurderIPC 302Section 34acquittal
Judgment
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 956 .
Ii"
., ..,
A AMOL SINGH
v.
.
STATE OF M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 898 Of 2008)
B MAY 15, 2008
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.SATHASIVAM, JJ.)
Penal Code, 1860-s.302 r!w s.34- Murder- Two dying
declarations - Inconsistency between, in respect of the mo-
~
...
c five and manner of murder- Conviction by Courts below - On
appeal, held: Even if there is plurality in dying declarations, if •
it is voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental condition and >
consistent, can be relied upon without any corroboration - In
case of inconsistency nature thereof has to be examined - In
D the instant case, the inconsistencies are material - Hence,
conviction not called for -- Dying Declaration.
Appellant-accused alongwith another accused was
charged for having caused death of a woman. The de-
ceased had made her dying declaration before ASl(PWS).
E Thereafter, she again made her dying declaration before
the Executive Magistrate(PW9). Trial Court convicted both
the accused uls.302 rlw s.34 IPC. High Court confirmed
the conviction holding that though there were more than ..
one dying declaration, the extent of variance between the ,..
F two was insignificant. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is not the plurality of the dying declara-
tions but the reliability thereof that adds weight to the pros-
G ecution case. If a dying declaration is found to be volun-
tary, reliable and made in fit mental condition, it can be ~
relied upon without any corroboration. The statement
should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had
several opportunities of making such dying declarations,
H 956
AMOL SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 957
.. " that is to say, if there are more than one dying declaration A
they should be consistent. However, if some inconsisten-
cies are noticed between one dying declaration and the
other, the court has to examine the nature of the incon-
sistencies, namely, whether they are material or not. While
scruitinizing the contents of various dying declaration, in B
such a situation, the court has to examine the same in the
light of the various surrounding facts and circumstances .
• [Para 8] [960-D,E,F]
'l Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P 1993 (2)
sec 684 - referred to. c
2. The High Court had observed that the dying dee-
laration (Exh.P11) scribed by the Executive Officer, (PW9)
was not in conformity with the FIR and the earlier dying
declaration (Exh.P3) scribed by ASI (PW 8) in so far as
D
different motives have been described. Several other
discrepancie exist even as regards the manner in which
she is supposed to have been sprinkled with kerosene
and thereafter set on fire. Therefore, the discrepancies,
make the last declaration doubtful. The nature of the in-
consistencies is such that there are certainly material. That E
being so, it would be unsafe to convict the appellant
[Paras 9 and 10] [960-G,H, 961-A,8]
:> CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal
No. 898 of 2008 F
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2007 of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal
No. 399/1993
Shiv SagarTiwari, R.R. Singh,Akanksha Tiwari and Pooja G
• for the Appellant.
Siddhartha Dave, Vibha Datta Makhija and Jemtiben for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
')o.:_ .,
A DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Divi-
sion Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur up-
holding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the of-
fence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
B the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence
of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-with default stipu-
lation. AppellantAmol Singh was arraigned in the charge sheet
asA2.
c 3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
Saraswati Bai-deceased was a woman of questionable
character. After being deserted by her husband Motilal, she
developed illicit relationship with A2 who ultimately kept her as
mistress. At the relevant point of time, she was residing in
D Tapariya (hut) at village Bichhua.
On 171h March, 1992 at about 8.00 p.m. hearing screams
of Saraswati Bai, persons residing in the neighbourhood viz.
Rajesh Gupta (PW6), Santosh Gudda (PW2), Mukundi Lal
E (PW4), Kaliram (PW5), Chhindami Lal (PW3), and Chandra
Bhushan rushed towards her hut. In the transit, some of them
had seen A 1 running away. They found Saraswati Bai lying in a
severely burnt condition in the courtyard of the hut. On being
enquired, she revealed that both the appellants had sprinkled
kerosene over her body and set her ablaze. According to her,
F A2 was enraged by her act of taking land belonging to his ad-
versary Raju Seth for cultivation as Bataidar (crop-sharer) .
.
It was upon the report (Ex. P-1) lodged by Kotwar Prahlad
Singh (PW1) and ASI Bairam (PW8) registered a case under
G Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants.
He along with Prahlad. proceeded to the spot and recorded ,.
Saraswati's dying declaration (Ex.P-3) in the presence of
Chhidami Lal (PW3), Kaliram (PW5), Babulal and Chandra
Bhushan.
H Saraswati Bai was immediately taken to the Government
AMOL SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 959
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.. ~
Hospital at Gadarwara. Observing that her condition was seri- A
ous, Dr. B.P. Gupta (PW11) not only admitted her for treatment
but also sent a memo (Ex.P-13) to the SHO requiring him to
take necessary action to get dying declaration recorded. Naib ·
, Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate R.K. Dimole (PW9), after
obtaining necessary certificate as to fit state of her mind, re- B
corded Saraswati Bai's dying declaration between 4.35 a.m.
and 4.50 a.m. thereafter, at 9.10 a.m., Saraswati Bai breathed .
her last in the hospital. Accordingly, the case was altered to one
under Section 302 IPC.
After inquest proceedings, dead body of Saraswati Bai c
was sent for post-mortem, Dr. D.S. Choudhary (PW7) found that
- body of Saraswati Bai, who was carrying more than 3 months
pregnancy, had burnt to the extent of 89%. According to him,
the cause ofSaraswati Bai's death was shock due to extensive
burns. However, he preserved the remaining pieces of burnt D
·• saree and blouse, earrings, nathni, Bangles and bunch of scalp
hair for forensic examination.
During investigation, burnt pieces of saree and blouse,
one kupiya (Container) of kerosene, a matchbox, one pair of
shoes belonging to A2, a lathi and a broken mala (necklace) E
were seized from the spot; the appellants were apprehended
and a burn injury was also found by Dr. R.K Patel (PW10) on the
right forearm of A2.
4. Two accused persons faced trial for offence punishable F
under Section 302 IPC and in alternative under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC, as they abjured the guilt. To prove
the accusations prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On con-
sideration of the evidence, the trial court found the accused per-
sons guilty of death of the deceased in furtherance of their com-
G
• mon intention. Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced
as aforestated. Both of them preferred separate appeals be-
fore the High Court.
5. Before the High Court primary stand was to the accept-
ability of the dying declaration. The High Court rejected the H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. ~
)< •
A plea and held that though there were more than one dying dee-
laration, the extent of variance between the two was insignifi-
cant. It was noted that the dying declarations were consistent in
substance as to the complexity of the accused persons caus-
ing burn injury to the person of the deceased and, therefore,
B there was no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court to warrant
interference. Accordingly the appeals were dismissed.
6. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel-
!ant submitted that there was great variance in the so called "
dying declarations, which affected credibility of the evidence.
c
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
1--
hand submitted that minor variance in the dying declarations
have no relevance.
8. Law relating to appreciation of evidence in the form of
D more than one dying declaration is well settled. Accordingly, it
is not the plurality of the dying declarations but the reliability
thereof that adds weight to the prosecution case. If a dying dee-
laration is found to be voluntary, reliable and made in fit mental
condition, it can be relied upon without any corroboration. The
E statement should be consistent throughout. If the deceased had
several opportunities of making such dying declarations, that is
to say, if there are more than one dying declaration they should
be consistent. (See: Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v: State of
A.P [ (1993) 2 SCC 684]. However, if some inconsistencies
F are noticed between one dying declaration and the other, the
court has to examine the nature of the inconsistencies, namely,
whether they are material or not. While scruitinizing the con-
tents of various dying declaration, in such a situation, the court
has to examine the same in the light of the various surrounding
facts and circumstances.
G
9. It is to be noted that the High Court had itself observed
that the dying declaration (Exh .P 11) scribed by the Executive
Officer, (PW9) at about 0435 hours in the same night was not in
conformity with the FIR and the earlier dying declaration (Exh.P3)
H scribed by ASI Bairam (PW 8) in so far as different motives
AMOL SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 961
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
.. " have been described. That is not the only variation. Several A
other discrepancies, even as regards the manner in which she
is supposed to have been sprinkled with kerosene and thereaf-
ter set on fire.
10. Therefore, the discrepancies, make the last declara-
tion doubtful. The nature of the inconsistencies is such that there 8
are certainly material. That being so, it would be unsafe to con-
vict the appellant. The conviction is set aside and appellant is
acquitted of the charges. He be set at liberty forthwith unless
required to be in custody in connection with any 'other case.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "dying declaration"Sign in to search