Holding

When inconsistencies exist in multiple dying declarations, the first declaration is preferred, and only the role of the mother‑in‑law in lighting the match is established; the other accused are acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

Summary

The case concerned the murder of Harbhajan Kaur, who died from burn injuries allegedly inflicted by members of her in‑law family. The prosecution’s case rested on two dying declarations made by the deceased, which contained inconsistencies regarding the roles of various accused. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of the dying declarations, the weight to be given to the first versus the second statement, and the need for corroboration when doubts arise. It held that the first dying declaration is to be preferred and that the mother‑in‑law’s role in lighting the match was consistent, but the involvement of the brothers‑in‑law and their wives could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal of Roshan Kaur was dismissed and she was ordered to surrender, while the appeals of Santokh Singh, Vir Kaur and Bimla Kaur were allowed, resulting in their acquittal.

Issues considered

Whether the two dying declarations, despite inconsistencies, are reliable enough to sustain convictions.
Whether the first dying declaration should be given greater weight than the second in cases of inconsistency.
Whether the benefit of doubt principle applies to the accused due to lack of corroborative evidence.
Whether the investigation and medical certification of the deceased’s fitness to give a statement were adequate.
Whether the alleged involvement of specific accused (brothers‑in‑law and sisters‑in‑law) can be proved from the dying declarations.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

dying declarationmurdersection 302Indian Penal Codebenefit of doubtinconsistencycorroborationconvictionacquittaldowry harassmentevidence

Judgment

A RANJIT SINGH AND CO.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

NOVEMBER 9, 2006

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

S. 302-Death of married women by burn injuries-Jn two dying
C declarations victim implicating her in-laws and their relatives-
lnconsistencies in two dying declarations-Conviction of in-laws and their
relatives by courts below-Husband acquitted on benefit of doubt-Held, in
a case of inconsistencies in two dying declarations, in relation to the active
role played by one or the other accused persons, Court shall lean more
D towards the first dying declaration than the second one-Role of mother-in-
/aw, in lighting the match stick is consistent-Her appeal dismissed-
!nconsistency in the role ascribed to brothers-in-.laws and sister-in-law of the
deceased is, evident-In a case of this nature, the rule of caution should be
applied and, therefore, giving benefit ofdoubt they are acquitted-Evidence-
Dying declarations-Inconsistencies in two dying declarations-Effect of
E
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 142 of
2005.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 2.3.2004 of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. No. 282-DB/2000.
F
Vineet Bhagat, K.G. Bhagat, Manohar Singh Bakshi and Debasis Misra
for the Appellants.

Avneet Toor and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondent.

G The Order of the Court was delivered by

ORDER

Five appellants, namely, Rajit Singh, Santokh Singh, Roshan kaur, Vir
Kaur and Bimla Kaur are before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
I-I 802
RANJITSINGHv. STATEOFPUNJAB 803

judgment and order dated 2.3.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the A
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 282/2000, whereby
and whereunder the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the

... Additional Sessions Judge, Jallandhar On 23.5.2000 in Sessions Case No. 44/
1999 was affirmed:

Appellants before us, together with Dalip Singh, elder brother-in-law of B
the deceased as also her husband Hari Singh, were tried for commission of
an offence of murdering Harbhajan Kaur on 21.8.1997 at about 7.30 a.m. Before
we advert. to the factual matrix involved in this appeal, we may notice that
whereas the aforementioned Ranjit Singh and Dilip Singh have since expired,
Hari Singh husband of the deceased has been acquitted by the High Court C
upon grant of benefit of doubt.

The prosecution case rests on the dying declarations made by the
deceased, the first of which was recorded by Onkar Singh, Investigating
Officer on 21.8.1997 at about 11.30 a.m. the said dying declaration was treated
to be the first information report and on the basis thereof investigation D
commenced. As we would have to consider the aforesaid dying declaration
for the purpose of appreciation of evidence in this case, we would do better
to take not of the same:

"I am resident of Mithu Basti and am doing domestic work. My
husband is working in a factory. I have two sons named Mohinder Pal E
and Amar Pal and a daughter named Rupinder Kaur. Today in the
morning I had sent my children to school after preparing meals. It was
about 7-1/2 O'Clock in the morning. I was setting my clothes in the
room then my father-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil from a stove on me
and my mother-in-law Rooshan Kaur and my sister-in-law Vir Kaur
W/o Dilip Singh, Bilma Kaur W/o Santokh Singh and brother of my F
husband namely Dalip Singh and Santokh Singh caught hold of me
and mother-in-law Roshan Kaur set me ablaze with a match stick. My
husband at the time had gone to the toilet. All of them with intention
to kill me have set me ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on me. My
body was badly· charred. My husband and his aunt (sister of mother G
-in-law) namely Pathani brought me to the hospital and got me admitted
there. All the above said persons keeping quarrel with me and they
used to pick up quarrel with me on every lame excuse. I was married
in 1984 and since then they had been harassing me but my husband
never harassed me."
H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.K

A It is not in dispute that the dying declaration was also made before Smt.
Preeti Sahni, Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Patiala. The said dying declaration
was recorded on 22.8.1997 at about 8.30 a.m. which reads as under:

"Yesterday, about 8 A.M. There was a quarrel in our family. Prior
to this also there remained of and tension in our house. Our family
B is residing as joint family. Our younger brother and one elder brother
of my husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law also residingwith us.
Yesterday, at 8 A.M. In the morning my husband has a quarrel with
me and he asked me to go away and there are many like you. My in-
laws were always harassing me over the matter of dowry and used to
quarrel with me on lame excuse. At that time of quarrel I asked my
c husband as to where I have to' go to finish the quarrel I went in the
room and started gathering the clothes. Therefore my mother-in-law
Roshan Kaur came and followed my sister-in-law Bimla Kaur, Vir Kaur
(wives of younger and elder brothers of my husband) also came. My
father-in-law Ranjit Singh, younger and elder brother of my husband
D also came. My mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene oil on me. All the men
were helping my mother-in-law. Then my mother-in-law set ablaze with
a match stick,. My husband at the time was sitting in a latrine, what
he did not say anthing. He new everything. Then I did raised alarm
of 'Bachao, 'Bachao', but none heard me. My children had gone to
school at that time. Then on raising alarm by many people gathered
E from neighborhood. My neighborhood informed my parents about
this. My parents are residing in a Basti Nau Jalandhar. My aunt (sister
of my mother-in-law) brought me to hospital. None of my in-laws came
here. It is my mother-in-law who set me ablaze and my husband,
father-in-law, elder and younger brother of my husband and Dalip
F Singh and Santokh Singh and their wives and also with them and join
this plan and all of them were present at home. All of them used to
harass me over dowry."

Before proceeding further in the matter we may notice that before the
second dying declaration was recorded, an attempt was made also to record
G the dying declaration of the deceased by the Judicial Magistrate on 21.8.1997,
but as the condition of the deceased was not such so as to enable her to make
any statement, the same could not be recorded. We may, at this stage, notice
that an oral dying declaration was also made by the deceased before her
brother Harbhajan Singh who examined himself as PW-7. The defence has
H examined one Gurmukh Singh (DW-4) to show that a dying declaration was
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 805
also made before him by the deceased to the effect that she got bum injuries A
from an accident.

- The learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court relied fully on the
aforementioned dying declarations to arrive at their respective findings in
their judgments of conviction and sentence as noticed hereinbefore.
B
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, in support of
the appeal, raised the following contentions:

(I) A perusal of the dying declarations, which were recorded by the
Investigating officer and by the Judicial Magistrate, would establish that she
was tutored and in any event there were possibilities of tutoring the deceased C
and in that view of the matter the same should not have been relied upon.

.. (2) The deceased having all along been under the treatment of Dr .
Kuldip Singh, who examined himself as PW-3, there was absolutely no reason
as to why certificate in regard to the physical and mental condition of the Q
deceased was obtained from Dr. Rupinder Kaur (Pw-12).

(3) Evidence of Harbhajan Singh (PW-7) is not at all reliable in so far
as he had improved his story of introducing the purported harassment meted
out to the deceased for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry which was not
even stated by the deceased in her dying declaration. E.
(4) PW-7 was inimically disposed towards one of the accused, as he
-..
had·taken a loan of Rs. 35.000 from him.

(5) The investigation carried out by the Investigation Officer was not
a fair one inasmuch as he merely recovered a stove from the place of occurrence F
but failed to take any photograph of the place of occurrence, failed to seize
any burnt pieces of clothes and also failed to record the statements of the
neighbourers as also Gurmukh Singh (DW-4).

(6) The learned Sessions Judge although was of the opinion that the
second dying declaration was not truthful, but despite the same, wrongly G
proceeded to rely upon the first dying declaration to convict and sentence
the appellants before us. In this connection our attention has also been drawn
to the judgment of the High Court wherein, despite noticing the inconsistencies
in the two dying declarations, the High Court opined that the conviction of
the appellants would be permissible in law as their involvement in the H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A occurrence is proved.
The learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, supported
the judgment.

The deceased was running a shop. It is also not in dispute that there
B used to be frequent quarrels between the husband and wife. On more than
one occasion, the disputes and differences between the deceased and her
husband were settled through the intervention of the Panchayat. In fact, on
one such occasion a compromise was recorded by the said Panchayat which
was marked as Ext. DL.

c We may furthermore notice that, indisputably, at the time the occurrence
took place, the husband was in the latrine. The grievance of the deceased as
against her husband appears to be that despite calling, he did not come at
the spot. It however, appears from 'her first dying declaration that she was
taken to the hospital by her husband and his aunt, namely, Pathani - sister
D of the mother-in-law of the deceased.

The prosecution case must be judged in the aforementioned factual
backdrop. It is solely based on the dying declaration of the deceased.
Corroboration thereto, if any, can be sought from the fact that it was established
that they had been quarreling on earlier occasions also. In both her dying
E declaration, the genesis of the occurrence is stated to be the same, however
the mode and the manner in which the same was done as also the role played
by the appellants and her father-in-law Ranjit Singh, are somewhat inconsistent. •
Learned counsel for the appellants, as noticed hereinbefore, laid emphasis
on the fact that keepirig in view the said inconsistencies in the dying
F declarations, this Court should not at all rely thereupon.

It is now well settled that conviction can be recorded on the basis of
a dying declaration alone, ifthe same is wholly reliable, but in the event there
exists any suspicion as regards correctness or otherwise of the said dying
G declaration, the Courts in arriving at the judgment of conviction shall look for
some corroborating evidence. It is also well known that in a case where
inconsistencies in the dying declarations, in relation to the active role played
by one or the other accused persons, exist, the court shall lean more towards
the first dying declaration than the second one.

H We, however, are not in a position to persuade ourselves to accept the
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 807

submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that we should not A
accept any of the dying declarations at all or any part thereof.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect
that PW-3 being the attending physician, there was no reason for her to grant'
any certificate, cannot be accepted. She deposed on the basis of the bed-head
ticket. Even in the bed-head ticket, it was stated at the time when the second B
dying declaration was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, and
endorsement had been made by Dr. K.K. Chahar that when the Magistrate
recorded the statements of the patient she had been in a fit medical condition.
Only because she treated the deceased all along, the same would not mean
that she would examine the patients in the hospital throughout the day and C
night.

PW-12 Dr. Rupinder Kaur is also a responsible doctor. In her deposition
she has stated that when the doctor examined the deceased, she was fully
conscious and though she was having pain she was fit to make the statement,
D
It was sought to be argued that the said doctor did not issue any
certificate of recording of dying declaration in the beginning but it was not
necessary. The statement of the deceased was taken only when the learned
Magistrate as also the attending doctor satisfied themselves about her
condition to make statement. Mrs. Preeti Sahni, Judicial Magistrate, lst Class,
Patiala, who examined herself as PW-1, made a categorical statement that E
before her statement was recorded she had put questions to her in order tb
ascertain whether she was capable of understanding the same and was in
aposition to make statement voluntarily. It is of some significance to note that
the Investigating Officer, Executive Magistrate as also the doctors were taking
extreme care in that behalf as is evident from the fact that although after F
recording the first information report, an endeavor was made on 21.8.1997 t9
get the statement of the deceased recorded by the Executive magistrate but
as she was not found to be in a fit condition to make statement, the same
was not recorded. It is therefore not correct to suggest that the judicial
magistrate recorded the statement of the deceased although she was not in
a fit condition to make the statement. G
We may, at this juncture, notice the discrepancies, which were considered
by both the learned Trial Judge as also the High Court. Whereas the deceased
in her first dying declaration ascribed the role of her father-in-law as pouring
kerosene on her and the role of ablaze by a match stick to her mother-in-law,
H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A but in her statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate, she stated that
the mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene on her and then she set ablazing her
with a match stick. It is, therefore, evident that the role of Roshan Kaur
(mother-in-law) in lighting the match stick is consistent.

We, however, are not in a position to accept the statement of the
B deceased as regards the roles played by the other accused persons, namely,
the brother-in-laws of the deceased and their respective wives.

The role ascribed to Vir Kaur, wife of Dalip singh (since deceased), and
Bimla Kaur wife of Santokh Singh, together with their husbands is that they
C had allegedly caught hold of her.

Whereas in the second dying declaration, the deceased alleged that
while after quarreling with her husband, she wanted to leave the house and
for that purpose she started gathering clothes, her father-in-law came, followed
by her sister-in-law Bimla Kaur. Ranjit Singh, her father-in-law and brothers
D of her husband, namely, Dalip Singh and Santokh Singh, had also come there.
According to her, all the men were helping her mother-in-law and at that point
of time her mother-in-law set her ablaze with a match stick. The inconsistency
in the roles ascribed to her brother-in-law and sisters-in-law is, therefore,
evident.. In her first dying declaration, the role of catching hold of her was
ascribed. to all of them, other than the mother-in-law; but in the se'cond
E statement it was ascribed only to the men, namely her brothers-in-law alone.

We are, therefore of the opinion that in a case of this nature, the rule
of caution should be applied and therefore benefit of doubt should be given
to appellant Nos. 2, 4 and 5, namely, Santokh Singh, Vir Kaur w/o Dalip Singh
and Bimla Kaur w/o Santokh Singh, respectively.
F
As for the purpose of arriving at the aforementioned conclusion, we
have not taken into consideration the purported oral dying declaration made
by the deceased before PW-7, we do not think it necessary to discuss his
evidence. We may, however, observe that the statement of Gurmukh Singh
G (DW-4), has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge as also
by the High Court. There was also no reason as to why any statement. shall
be made before him by the deceased. If his statement was correct then it was
expected that he would also come to the hospital. It was furthermore expected
that he would get his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is
to much to contend that he gave his statement before the Investigating
H
RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 809
Officer but the same had not been recorded. Not even such suggestion was A
made to PW-13, although a lot of suggestions have been thrown at him as
regards his conducting one-sided investigation.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the'
investigation is faulty, is not a matter, which, in our considered opinion, is of
any importance. The first information report was based on the dying declaration. B
The evidence of the accused was that she caught fire accidentally. The
learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court has considered the matter at
great length. Whether the deceased received burn injuries accidentally or
otherwise may be a matter in issue but that she received burn injuries is not
and issue. It was, therefore, not necessary to take photographs or seize the C
alleged pieces of burnt clothes. In any view of the matter, the same has not
caused any prejudice to the appellants.

For the reasons aforementioned the appeal of Roshan Kaur, appellant ,
No.-3, is dismissed and the appeal filed by appellant No.2 - Santokh Singh,
appellant No.4 - Vir Kaur and appellant No.5 - Bimla Kaur, is allowed. Appellant D
No. 3 - Roshan Kaur is directed to surrender and she be taken into custody
immediately. Appellant Nos.2, 4 and 5 are on bail. They are discharged from
their bail bonds.

RP. Appeal disposed of.