Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that a conviction can solely be based upon a dying declaration but it must be trustworthy, reliable and one which inspires confidence. 

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra has accordingly acquitted Phulel Singh, held guilty of dowry death and sentenced to seven years jail term under Section 304-B of the IPC.

In the instant case, after going through the evidence, the bench said there was a "grave doubt" as to whether the dying declaration recorded by Sadhu Singh, Executive Magistrate was a voluntary one or tutored at the instance of brother of the deceased. 

The magistrate had deposed that the statement of the deceased, Kiran Kaur, was recorded on November 8, 1991 after the incident on November 5, 1991, upon an application brought by two-three boys who also told him that whatever they had to tell the deceased, they had told her and that he should accompany them to record her statement. He has further admitted that those two-three boys were related to the deceased and some other persons were also in the room in which he recorded the statement of the deceased.

Perusing the records, the court also noted it is doubtful whether the doctor had really examined the deceased with regard to her fitness prior to her statement being recorded by the Executive Magistrate.

The doctor who recorded history of the patient after burn injuries stated that the deceased had then said her husband had extinguished fire by pouring water on her.

In the totality of the circumstances, it cannot be said that the dying declaration is free from doubt, the bench concluded.

Besides, the bench pointed out, "The most glaring aspect that is required to be considered is that the High Court itself has disbelieved the dying declaration insofar as Jora Singh, father-in-law of the deceased is concerned. We fail to understand as to how the same dying declaration could have been made basis for conviction of the appellant when the same was disbelieved insofar as another accused is concerned."

With regard to the evidence of harassment on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, the bench said the witnesses were relatives of the deceased and their evidence had to be scrutinised with "greater care, caution and circumspection". 

"Insofar as harassment with regard to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry is concerned, except the vague allegation, there is nothing in their evidence to support the prosecution case," the bench said.

It also noted the statement of the Investigating Officer who stated the case was that of attempt of commit suicide under Section 309 of the IPC.

Thus, the bench said it was of the considered view that there is no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was harassed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. 

Case Title: PHULEL SINGH vs. STATE OF HARAYANA