Case: Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1227

BENCH: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice P. S. Narasimha, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Introduction:

In the case of Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana (2023), the Supreme Court examined the appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B of the IPC (Dowry Death) while acquitting his father of the same charges. The Court also reviewed whether the dying declaration of the deceased could be relied upon to sustain the conviction. The bench expressed grave doubts over the voluntary nature of the dying declaration recorded three days after the incident, which led to the appellant's acquittal.

Facts of the Case:

Mrs. Kiran Kaur was married to Mr. Phulel Singh in March 1987. The couple had one son and one daughter. Kiran Kaur was reportedly subjected to dowry harassment by her husband, the appellant, and his family. On 5th November 1991, Kiran Kaur suffered fatal burns, covering 91% of her body. The deceased's dying declaration, recorded by an Executive Magistrate on 8th November 1991, implicated the appellant in the cause of her burns. However, the statement was recorded three days after the incident, and concerns were raised regarding its authenticity. Despite these doubts, an FIR was registered against the appellant under various sections of the IPC, and charges were framed for murder (Section 302) and dowry death (Section 304-B).

The trial court convicted the appellant and his family under Section 304-B, but acquitted them of charges under Section 302.

The High Court upheld the appellant's conviction, under Section 304-B and dismissed the revision petition concerning his acquittal on charges of Section 302, while acquitting the co-accused (the father-in-law) of charges u/s 304-B IPC, 1860.

Issues:

1. Whether the charge under which co-accused were acquitted can be used to convict the appellant?

2. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC by the High Court was justified and lawful?

3. Whether the statements made by the deceased to the Executive Magistrate in the presence of her relatives before the medical officer’s report could be considered valid in a court of law?

Observations:

The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the circumstances surrounding the dying declaration made by the deceased, Kiran Kaur. Several critical factors raised concerns about the reliability and voluntariness of the statement, leading the Court to express grave doubts regarding its authenticity:

• The dying declaration was recorded three days after the incident. The significant delay between the incident and the recording raised concerns about the freshness and reliability of the statement. The Court emphasized that immediate statements made in circumstances of peril to life tend to be more spontaneous and genuine, while delayed statements may be influenced by various external factors, especially in emotionally charged familial situations.

• The statement was recorded in the presence of the deceased’s relatives, which the Court found to be problematic. The relatives of the deceased had expressed to the Executive Magistrate that "whatever needed to be told was already done to the deceased." This admission raised the possibility that the relatives might have influenced the content of the statement or applied indirect pressure on the deceased to give a particular account of the incident. The Court noted that the relatives’ involvement in the process of recording the dying declaration introduced a significant risk of external influence, undermining its credibility.

• The medical officer’s opinion on the fitness of the deceased was not available at the time of recording the statement, and it was not until later in the evening that the doctor provided the required certification. The absence of medical verification at the time of recording the statement further weakened the argument that the dying declaration was made under the proper conditions, with the necessary mental clarity and physical capacity.

• The medical evidence regarding the deceased's ability to withstand the fire conflicted with the narrative provided by the dying declaration. The medical reports suggested that Kiran Kaur had initially managed to fight the flames, which contradicted the appellant’s alleged role in causing her death. This inconsistency further raised doubts about the appellant’s sole involvement and the accuracy of the statement.

• Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The Court noted that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the appellant’s alleged harassment of the deceased for dowry beyond a reasonable doubt. While the prosecution presented some testimony regarding dowry demands and harassment, this was not corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Court emphasized that dowry death charges under Section 304-B IPC require clear and convincing proof of harassment, which was absent in this case.

Based on the above observations, the Supreme Court concluded that the dying declaration was unreliable. The Court acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 304-B of the IPC, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court stated that a dying declaration, when disbelieved against one accused, cannot be used as the sole basis for convicting co-accused. The appellant’s conviction under Section 304-B was overturned due to the lack of corroborative evidence regarding dowry harassment and the questionable circumstances surrounding the dying declaration.

The decision reaffirmed the legal principle that while dying declarations can be critical evidence in cases involving the death of a person, they must be scrutinized carefully for factors such as influence, delay, and medical fitness, among others. The judgment highlighted the importance of safeguarding the rights of the accused against potentially unreliable evidence, ensuring fairness in the judicial process.

Impact

The judgment in Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana emphasizes key legal principles, particularly:

1. Dying declarations must be voluntary, made in a sound mental state, and free from external influence. If there are doubts about their authenticity, they cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction.

2. In dowry death cases (Section 304-B IPC), allegations of dowry harassment must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and a dying declaration alone is insufficient without supporting evidence.

3. The acquittal of one co-accused can affect the conviction of others if the same evidence is used to convict them, especially in cases like this where the dying declaration was disbelieved for one accused.

4. The judgment underscores the importance of protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence, reinforcing fairness in criminal trials.