Irfan v State of Uttar Pradesh

Title of the Case	Irfan v State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation	2023 SCC OnLine 1060
Court	Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement	23/08/2023
Bench	Justice B R GavaiJustice J B PardiwakaJustice P K Mishra

1. INTRODUCTION
   1. The case of Irfan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, herein referred to as the ‘case’, is one of the highly relevant and significant interventions by the Supreme Court on the topic of death penalty. 
   2. The criminal justice system operates on the basis that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, an exception to this general rule against hearsay is a dying declaration, under S. 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act. The belief behind this is that a person who is aware of their impending death would not lie. 
   3. The case involves a scenario in which the Appellant has been accused of the acts of murdering his own brother and son by burning them. The previous Courts had found the evidence to be sufficient to place him in the rarest of rare category. However, the Supreme Court scrutinised not only the ‘what’ of the evidence, but also the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind it. 
   4. This case delves into the psychology of witnesses, possibility of tutoring, and limitations of burn victims. The Court gave a clear message that greater the crime, harsher is the punishment. 

2. FACTS OF THE CASE
   1. The prosecution suggests that the crime committed is rooted in the appellants desire to marry bus second wife- this was opposed by his brothers and son. This opposition led to quarrels. The fact that the appellant wished to sell the ancestral home to accommodate his new life, aggravated the situation.
   2. The allegation was that the three victims were sleeping in the same room and the appellant poured kerosene and struck a match. The screams if the victims alerted the neighbours who rushed toward the room and claimed to see the applicant fleeing the house. 
   3. Statements were given by two of the victims and investigation relied heavily on these dying declarations. The High Court acknowledged minor discrepancies but felt that the dying declaration is more important.

3. ISSUES OF THE CASE
   1. Whether the convocation may be sustained when it is based on dying declarations under suspicious circumstances. 
   2. Whether testimonies of family may be considered as reliable and independent due to their hostility and inconsistencies in their description.
   3. Whether the condition of the victims- 90% burned- permitted them to make a coherent statement without tutoring.

4. JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
   1. The Supreme Court conducted a thorough review of all the medical evidence, trial records, and delivered a landmark judgement which led in the acquittal of the applicant. 
   2. The Court held that the prosecution failed to bridge a gap between what may be true and what must be true. The Bench further found that the lower Courts had erred in the mechanical acceptance of a dying declaration.
   3. The Court observed that the presented evidence is insufficient to prove that there is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. More importantly, the Court stated that dying declaration do not inspire confidence and appear to be a work of coordinated effort by the family to implicate the applicant. Hence, the Supreme Court quashed the death sentence and ordered the release of the applicant. 

5. REASONING OF THE CASE
   1. The Supreme Court broke down the logic into various pillars:
      1. Doctrine of Dying Declaration 

The Court noted that a dying declaration can be the primary evidence for conviction without corroboration only if the statement is beyond reproach and wholly reliable. In the case, the Court found that the given declarations were far from being beyond reproach,

2. Mental and Physical Fitness of Declarants

The medical state of the deceased were a central point of contention. Victims with 80-90% burns are in extreme shock and are administered heavy sedatives- such as pethidine or morphine- for management of pain. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to produce any certificate of fitness from the attending doctors when the statements were recorded. A mere endorsement by a doctor can not be a substitute, and the testamentary capacity of the victims is crucial. 

3. Presence of Interested Witnesses

The Court emphasised that between the time of the incident and recording of the statements- the victims were constantly surrounded by the Prosecution Witness 2 and 4. These witnesses, due to family disputes, had clear motive to tutor the victims in naming the applicant as the perpetrator. The Court held that when a declarant is surrounded by those who may be hostile towards the accused- the Courts must exercise extreme caution.

4. Absence of all three declarations

It was suspicious that the police failed to record the statement of the victim who was conscious for 13 days. This failure without a valid reasoning casts a shadow of doubt over the integrity of the investigation.

2. Evaluation of 11 Factors of reliability
3. The Court did not just look into the facts but also established a rigorous framework for the evaluation of any dying declaration. The Court highlighted that for any statement to be given the title or be referred to as a dying declaration; it must pass tests of reliability. 

1. Whether the declarant has a clear opportunity to view the assailant. In the case, the room was dark and then filled with smoke due to the fire which questions the fact that the victims identified the appellant.
2. Whether the statement is consistent. In the case, the Court found many variations in how each victim described the events which folded out. 
3. Time interval between the declaration and incident. In the case, the statement of one was recorded immediately, however that of the other was recorded post 9 days. This increases the chance of tutoring.
4. Role of interested parties. Refer to 5.1.3. 
5. Medical state if the declarant. Refer to 5.1.2.
6. Absence of a Magistrate. The fact that despite the availability of the Magistrate, the declaration was recorded by a police officer- has no valid reasoning or explanation and hence is a lapse in the standard procedure. 
7. Lack of corroboration from neighbours. Despite it being a crowded residential area, no neighbours were examined. 
8. Language. The Court has scrutinised the vocabulary used in the declaration. They checked if it sounded like police language of natural. 
9. Third Victim mystery . Refer to 5.1.4. 
10. The possibility of self infliction. The Court noted that the Prosecution failed to rule out all other possibilities without a reasonable doubt.
11. Ring of Truth. The Court stated that the weight if the above factors fail to produce a full ring.

3. Discrepancies in evidence.
   1. The Prosecution failed to provide a forensic link between the kerosene used for the crime and the Appellant. There was no fingerprint found on the container. There was a lack of any trace if accelerant on the clothes of the Applicant. For a case which results in the death of a human, such gaps must be filled and are investigated in a critical manner by the Supreme Court. 
4. Tutoring
   1. It has been observed by the Court that in disputes especially family disputes, the line between vengeance and truth is not clear. The victim, who is in a vulnerable state, can be prompted or tutored. The Court noted that the Prosecution Witness 2 and 4 were extremely against the appellant. Their testimonies were extremely inconsistent with the actual layout of the building and timing of the fire. 

6. Conclusion
   1. The decision to put aside the decisions of the Lower Courts shows the vital role of the Court as a guardian. The reasoning provided by the Court shows us that the rule of necessity- accepting a dying declaration due to lack of other evidence- can not bypass the rule of caution. 
   2. The life of a person can not be taken away by the State based on statements which are medically questionable or influenced by politics. 

7. References
   1. Irfan v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1060
   2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

7.2.1 section 302- punishment for murder

7.2.2. Section 326 A- voluntary causing hurt by use of acid

7.2.3. Section 436- mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy. 

7.3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

7.3.1. Section 32 (1)- cases in which statement of fact by person who us dead or cannot be found.

7.4. Atar Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh. ( 2009. ) 15 SCC 278

7.5. Dalip Singh v State of Punjab ( 1979 ) 4 SCC 332- to discuss the weight of a testimony by an interested witness. 

7.6. Khushal Rao v State of Bombay 1958 SCR 552- it is the foundational principles for the evaluation of any dying declaration.

7.7. Laxman v State of Maharashtra ( 2002 ) 6 SCC 710- case for the requirement of a certificate by a doctor for any dying declaration.

Written by,

Bhuvana Avari

An Intern under Legal Vidhya