Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajaram, was convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cruelty towards his wife, Pushpa, who died from burn injuries. The prosecution alleged that on 23-04-2009, Pushpa was brought to the hospital by her husband with burn injuries. Two dying declarations were recorded: one by the Naib Tehsildar (Ex. P-11) and another by the police (Ex. P-26). In Ex. P-11, the deceased named her sisters-in-law and mother-in-law as the perpetrators who poured kerosene and set her on fire, but did not name her husband. In Ex. P-26, recorded later, she stated that her husband and in-laws had been taunting her for being lame, demanding dowry, and beating her. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 498A IPC, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the dying declaration was inadmissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act as it did not relate to the cause of death, and that the witnesses turned hostile. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration was admissible under Section 32(1) as it related to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death. The court found the dying declaration reliable, noting that the deceased was conscious and the statement was consistent. The court also held that the absence of a doctor's endorsement did not render the dying declaration inadmissible. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction under Section 498A IPC.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Admissibility under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Statement as to circumstances of transaction resulting in death - The court held that the dying declaration (Ex. P-26) which detailed cruelty and dowry demands by the appellant was admissible under Section 32(1) as it related to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, even though the immediate cause of death was burning. The court distinguished between statements directly describing the cause of death and those describing the circumstances, both being admissible. (Paras 13-15)
B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband - Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction based on dying declaration - The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC based on the dying declaration (Ex. P-26) which stated that the appellant and his family members taunted the deceased for being lame, demanded dowry, and beat her. The court found the dying declaration reliable despite the absence of a doctor's endorsement, as the deceased was conscious and the statement was consistent with other evidence. (Paras 11-16)
C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Scope of Interference by Supreme Court - The court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and High Court, as the findings were not perverse or unreasonable. The court noted that the dying declaration was credible and the prosecution witnesses who turned hostile did not affect the reliability of the dying declaration. (Paras 9-10, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dying declaration of the deceased is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 to prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC, and whether the conviction under Section 498A IPC is sustainable on the basis of such dying declaration.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC.
Law Points
- Dying declaration admissible under Section 32(1) Evidence Act if it relates to circumstances of transaction resulting in death
- Dying declaration need not be recorded by magistrate or in presence of doctor if it is otherwise reliable
- Conviction under Section 498A IPC can be based on dying declaration even if Section 304B not proved
Case Details
2022 LawText (SC) (12) 16
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2311 of 2022 [@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 6762 of 2022]
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Section 498A IPC
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside his conviction and sentence under Section 498A IPC
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted under Section 498A IPC by the trial court and the conviction was affirmed by the High Court; he appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the conviction.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant under Section 498A IPC; High Court dismissed appeal and affirmed conviction.
Issues
Whether the dying declaration (Ex. P-26) is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 to prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC?
Whether the conviction under Section 498A IPC is sustainable on the basis of the dying declaration when the witnesses turned hostile and the first dying declaration did not name the appellant?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the dying declaration is inadmissible under Section 32(1) as it does not relate to the cause of death; the witnesses turned hostile; there are contradictions between the two dying declarations; the second dying declaration is suspicious as it was recorded without doctor's clearance.
Respondent argued that the dying declaration is reliable and admissible; the absence of doctor's endorsement does not render it inadmissible; the concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
A dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is admissible not only when it relates to the cause of death but also when it relates to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in death. The statement of the deceased about cruelty and dowry demands by the husband and in-laws, made in the dying declaration, is admissible as it relates to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death. The absence of a doctor's endorsement on the dying declaration does not ipso facto render it inadmissible if it is otherwise reliable. Conviction under Section 498A IPC can be based on such a dying declaration even if the charge under Section 304B IPC is not proved.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 32 of the Evidence Act, which is material for the purposes of this appeal, reads as under: '32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. -- Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead... are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: -- (1) When it relates to cause of death. --When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death...'
In the dying declaration, Ex. P-11 recorded by PW-7... the deceased mentioned the circumstances surrounding the Incident, i.e., how she was burnt: 'I was sitting in the courtyard in the morning... My sisters-in-law (Jethani) Kiran and Shanti poured kerosene oil upon me and set me on fire...'
The second statement Ex. P-26 was recorded later by PW-15... the deceased further stated: '...My in-laws, husband, elder brothers-in-law... often by taunting for dowry used to beat up me for dowry demand. They used to tease me by calling lame. They used to demand rupees, motorcycle in dowry.'
Procedural History
The incident occurred on 23-04-2009. The deceased Pushpa succumbed to injuries on 10-05-2009. Police filed charge sheet against appellant and others under Sections 302, 307, 304B, 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Trial court framed charges under Sections 498A, 302 or alternatively 304B IPC against Santi Bai, and under Sections 498A, 304B IPC against appellant and others. Trial court convicted appellant under Section 498A IPC. Appellant appealed to Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to Supreme Court by special leave.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 498A, Section 302, Section 307, Section 304B, Section 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 32
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Section 3, Section 4
