JAYAMMA & ANOTHER vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 91

CITATION	2021 SC 251, (2021) 6 SCC 213
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	May 7, 2021
COURT	Supreme Court
APPELLANT	Jayamma & Another
RESPONDENT	State of Karnataka
BENCH	Aniruddha Bose, Suryakant, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

The Case of Jayamma & Anr vs State of Karnataka revolves around the evidentiary value of the dying declaration dated 22.09.1998 (Ex. P5) given by deceased. “The case was initially filed in the Trial Court. Trial Court after considering the circumstances such as testimonies of Hostile Witnesses, nature of Burn injuries of the Victim, and the lack of any corroborative evidence, Court held that the prosecution had failed to discharge its onus and acquitted the appellants. The High Court in appeal reversed the findings of the trial Court and held that the evidence consisting of dying declaration was clinching and sufficient to prove the guilt and reversed the acquittal awarded by the trial court. Subsequently Appellants were convicted under Section 302 Read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the order of the High Court Appellants filed two Criminal Appeals before the Supreme Court of India.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

“Parties in this case were closely related and had long standing animosity between the families of Jayamma w/o Reddinaika (Appellant No.1) and Jayamma wife of Sanna Ramanaika (deceased) related to a quarrel took place on 10.09.1998 in which, Thippeswamynaika son of the deceased assaulted and injured Reddinaika.
Thereafter, Appellants allegedly went to the house of deceased and demanded Rs. 4,000/- for the cost incurred on the medical treatment of Reddinaika. After a heated exchange of words, the appellants allegedly doused the deceased-Jayamma in kerosene and set her on fire.”
After hearing the voice of Jayamma her son Ravi Kumar (PW – 2) and daughter-in-law Saroja Bai attempted to extinguish the fire, “meanwhile the appellants fled away from the spot. Jayamma suffered serious injuries and Ravi Kumar sought help from Kumaranaika (PW – 3) to take her to the hospital. They transported Jayamma to Primary Health Centre, Thalak, where Dr. A. Thippeswamy provided initial treatment. The doctor sent a report to Thalak Police Station, and SHO K.V. Mallikarjunappa recorded Jayamma’s statement implicating the appellants”. A case was registered under Sections 504, 307, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. Due to the severity of her injuries, Jayamma was transferred to Government Hospital, Chitradurga, where she was succumbed to injuries on September 23, 1998, at 5:30 AM.
After the investigation concluded and charges were formally presented in court, the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge in Chitradurga. The accused were charged under Sections 504, 302, 114 along with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and opted for a trial. The prosecution presented nineteen witnesses and thirteen documents to prove the accused’s guilt. During their statements under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused denied all allegations without presenting any evidence in their defense.
In the Trial Process many prosecution witnesses turned Hostile. PW-2, the deceased’s son, presented an alternative narration that his mother had taken her own life. He claimed that she was distraught because he had been arrested and jailed for assaulting the husband of the first appellant. According to PW-2, the deceased was unable to speak after the incident. Similarly, PW-5, the deceased’s daughter-in-law, contradicted the prosecution’s version, stating she didn’t know how the deceased had died. She also disputed any altercation on the day her husband was arrested and claimed ignorance about the reason for his arrest. Witnesses PW-1 and PW-15, who were supposed to verify the seizure of items during the investigation, also failed to support the prosecution’s case. They denied being summoned by the police and stated nothing had been seized in their presence.
The main witnesses supporting the prosecution were PW-11 (K.V. Mallikarjunappa) and PW-16 (Dr. A. Thippeswamy). They affirmed that the statement attributed to the deceased (Ex. P-5), where she accused the appellants of attempting to murder her, was genuine and voluntary.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE SUPREME COURT

“Whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 378 of the CrPC?
Whether the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased died a homicidal death at the hands of the appellants?”

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS

The appellants contend that the High Court’s decision was unclear and erroneously overturned the well-considered acquittal order of the trial court. They cite several precedents, including Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram and others, emphasizing that when a higher court interferes with an acquittal, it must thoroughly examine the evidence and provide a clear rationale for why the trial court’s decision could not be sustained.
It is argued that the High Court failed to comprehensively evaluate all the evidence and did not specifically address the trial court’s findings. This, according to the appellants, indicates a failure on the part of the High Court to fulfill its duty under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The appellants assert that relying solely on the purported dying declaration (Ex. P-5) is not justified. They refer to the case of Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, arguing that Ex. P-5 was surrounded by doubts and should not have been the sole basis for conviction without corroboration.
Referring to Paparambaka Rosamma & Ors v. State of A.P., the appellants argue that since there was no medical certificate confirming the deceased’s mental fitness at the time of recording Ex. P-5, the High Court should not have placed reliance on it.
Finally, it is contended that the prosecution failed to establish any motive for the appellants to commit the alleged crime. They argue that without a motive, the conviction of the appellants cannot be justified.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

It is argued that the dying declaration recorded as Ex. P-5 is crucial and compelling evidence. “The prosecution witnesses, PW-11 and PW-16, testified that the statement was voluntarily given by the deceased in a fit state of mind. PW-16, a doctor, endorsed this statement, further validating its authenticity”. The contents of Ex. P-5 directly implicate all the accused in the crime of murder with a common intention.
Despite some witnesses turning hostile (specifically PWs 2 and 5), the State Counsel contends that their testimony should not be given credence. The evidence of PW-16, being an independent witness, is highlighted as pivotal. PW-16 confirmed that the deceased made the statement (Ex. P-5) voluntarily and while being mentally sound. This, along with PW-11’s account of recording the statement in the presence of PW-16, adds substantial weight to the prosecution’s case.
“The State Counsel refers to legal precedent, particularly Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), to argue that even in cases where the cause of death is hundred percent burn injuries, reliance on a dying declaration can be sufficient grounds for conviction.”

JUDGEMENT

A dying declaration, recorded according to law and providing a clear account of events, can be used as sole evidence to convict an accused. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872, allows this exception to the hearsay rule, admitting statements made by a person about the cause of their death or related injuries. These declarations are considered truthful, made under the belief of impending death, and free from malice. They are admissible due to necessity, as the declarant likely will not survive, and if deemed reliable, they can support a conviction.

After Observing the Evidences and circumstances Supreme Court Held that is totally not safe to convict appellants on the basis of the said document along with its corroboration by PW11 and PW16, the reasons are: Firstly, the dying declaration is unusually precise, more so than one would expect from a typical witness. It lacks a question-and-answer format, suggesting police influence may have skewed the responses. Secondly, the victim, an illiterate elderly person, would likely be unable to recount the incident with such accuracy, making the declaration improbable.

Thirdly, the victim, who had 80% burns and was sedated, likely experienced pain, delusion, and hallucination. The doctor’s fitness endorsement was made after the statement, not before. The victim’s faculties were likely impaired, and she may have echoed the police officer’s narrative. The officer, eager to solve the case, didn’t seek a prior fitness endorsement or a magistrate to record the statement.

Fourthly, there is a contradiction between Dr. Thippeswamy and Police Officer Mallikarjunappa regarding the victim’s burn injuries. The doctor noted burns on the hands, while the officer claimed the hands were uninjured, allowing a natural thumb impression. This discrepancy casts doubt on the police officer’s account. Fifthly, the police officer admitted not seeking a prior fitness endorsement from the doctor, later securing an unusual post-statement endorsement to cover this lapse, deviating from legal procedure.

Sixthly, “the motive for the alleged homicide is doubtful, as there is no evidence supporting the claim that the appellants set the victim on fire over a financial dispute. The victim’s son and daughter-in-law deny the incident, asserting it was suicide”. Seventhly, if it was a homicide, the victim’s son and daughter-in-law, “who were present at the hospital, would likely have reported it to the police immediately. Their failure to do so supports the possibility that the victim committed suicide, rather than being murdered.”

Eighthly, the victim was in the hospital for nearly 30 hours before she died, providing ample time to call a Judicial/Executive Magistrate to record her dying declaration. The prosecution did not do so, missing the opportunity to ensure the declaration’s credibility. Although not legally mandatory, having a magistrate record the declaration is a prudent measure to strengthen the prosecution’s case.

Supreme Court held that the alleged motive is unproven. The dying declaration (Ex. P-5) claims the appellants set the victim on fire over a trivial dispute involving medical expenses after her son allegedly beat Appellant No. 1’s husband. However, this incident was denied by the victim’s daughter-in-law, Saroja Bai (PW-5), and lacks supporting evidence, making the motive implausible. Supreme Court fully agreed with the view of Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, as reasons further cast doubt on the prosecution’s case, making it difficult to uphold a conviction based solely on the dying declaration.

Based on the reasons discussed earlier, both appeals are allowed. The High Court’s order dated 29.07.2008 is overturned, and the appellants are acquitted and released.

ANALYSIS

Supreme Court gave a wide Reasoning behind its Judgement Citing Various Precedents related to Dying Declaration. “In the case of P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka, the court discussed whether the percentage of burns sustained should universally determine the credibility of a dying declaration and the likelihood of its accurate recording. The court concluded that no strict rule applies in all cases. Instead, the credibility depends on various factors such as the nature and location of burns, their impact on the person’s ability to think clearly, and other relevant circumstances.”

“In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the court rejected the prosecution’s reliance on a dying declaration where the deceased, a 70-year-old with 80% burns, supposedly gave a detailed statement about the incident after 8 to 9 hours. The court doubted the authenticity of the declaration due to the lack of certification by a doctor regarding the deceased’s mental and physical state. Despite the doctor noting the patient as conscious and talking, the court found this insufficient to support the prosecution’s case, and oral evidence from the doctor or investigating officer did not strengthen the prosecution’s position.”

Further relying upon the Case Paniben vs State of Gujarat Court summed up several previous judgments governing dying declaration:

“There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration.”
“If the Court is Satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, it can base conviction on it, without corroboration.”
“The Court has to scrutinize the dying declaration carefully & must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination.”
“Where dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence.”
“Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected.”
A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction.
“Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected.”
“Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.”
“Normally the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail.”
Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon.
“Where there was more than one statement in the nature of dying declaration, one first in point of time must be preferred. Of course, if the plurality of dying declaration could be held to be trustworthy and reliable, it has to be accepted.”

CONCLUSION

The Present case Highlighted the Important Fact that the findings made by the Trial Could Should be Considered with Utmost diligence. Because, the Trial court in most of the cases consider each and every evidence at trial stage. The Supreme Court provided a detailed and reasonable explanation for its decision after the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal without proper reasoning, ultimately acquitting the appellants. The thorough analysis by the Hon’ble Justices is commendable. The Supreme Court’s judgment was based on a thorough consideration of the evidence presented, ensuring justice was served, albeit not swiftly but effectively.

RFERENCES

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.