Case Summary
Case Name: Suresh v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2013
Date of Judgment: 4th March 2025
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Appellant’s Counsel: Mr. Aravindh S., AOR
Respondent’s Counsel: Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv., Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv., Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv., Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
Relevant Statutes: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302, 307)
Cited Precedents: Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment in Suresh v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, has once again emphasised the significance of evaluating multiple dying declarations with due caution. The case revolved around the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the alleged murder of his wife by burning her alive. The Hon’ble Court, after a detailed examination of the facts and evidence, allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and granting the benefit of the doubt to the appellant.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on 12th September 2008, wherein the appellant was accused of pouring kerosene on his wife and setting her on fire. The victim succumbed to her injuries on 2nd October 2008, leading to the registration of a case under Section 302 IPC. The conviction by the Trial Court, which was later upheld by the High Court of Madras, primarily relied on the deceased’s dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate.
The Supreme Court was thus called upon to determine whether the conviction based on the dying declaration was justified, especially when the deceased had given multiple, contradictory statements.
Key Legal Issues Considered
Reliability of the Dying Declaration: The Supreme Court had to decide whether the deceased’s dying declaration could be solely relied upon for conviction, given that earlier statements to the police and the attending doctor suggested an accidental fire.
Corroboration of Evidence: The Court examined whether other material evidence supported the prosecution’s case.
Hostile Witnesses and Their Impact: The Court had to assess the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, many of whom had turned hostile during the trial.
Findings of the Supreme Court
1. Inconsistencies in the Deceased’s Statements
One of the most crucial aspects of this case was the deceased’s multiple statements. On the day of the incident, she informed the doctor (PW-13) and the police (PW-9) that she had caught fire accidentally while cooking. However, on 15th September 2008, she gave a different version, alleging that her husband had set her on fire. This inconsistency was further highlighted in her judicial dying declaration on 18th September 2008, where she reaffirmed the accusation against her husband.
The Hon’ble Court referred to its earlier ruling in Uttam v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 576, stating:
“In cases involving multiple dying declarations made by the deceased, the question that arises for consideration is as to which of the said dying declarations ought to be believed by the court... the court would be expected to carefully scrutinise the evidence to find out which of the dying declarations can be corroborated by other material evidence.”
Given the serious contradictions in the deceased’s statements, the Court found it unsafe to rely solely on the judicial dying declaration.
2. Lack of Corroborative Evidence
The Court observed that there was no substantive corroboration of the prosecution’s theory.
No Smell of Kerosene: The attending doctor (PW-13) categorically stated that the deceased’s body did not have any smell of kerosene when she was brought to the hospital. This created doubts about the prosecution’s claim that she was set on fire using kerosene.
Hostile Witnesses: The neighbours (PW-3 and PW-4), who had initially supported the prosecution’s case, later turned hostile. They testified that the appellant was the one who informed the deceased’s parents about the fire and attempted to extinguish it.
Contradictory Statements of Parents: The deceased’s parents (PW-1 and PW-2) claimed that the appellant had not tried to douse the fire, but their version was contradicted by PW-3 and PW-4.
Motive Not Clearly Established: The alleged motive, as stated in the judicial dying declaration, was that the appellant was enraged after the deceased beat their child. However, the Court found inconsistencies in the timeline of events, which cast doubt on this reasoning.
3. Possibility of Family Dispute Influencing the Case
The Court also took into account that there was a history of disputes between the appellant’s family and the deceased’s family. In 2006, the appellant’s brother had filed a criminal case against the deceased’s father and brother, which resulted in their conviction. The Court noted that the possibility of the deceased being influenced by her family members to give an adverse statement against the appellant could not be entirely ruled out.
Final Judgment and Reasoning
Based on the above findings, the Supreme Court held that:
The dying declaration of 18th September 2008 was unreliable due to contradictions with the deceased’s earlier statements.
There was no corroborative evidence supporting the claim that the appellant had set his wife on fire.
The possibility of tutoring by the deceased’s family could not be ignored.
The prosecution’s case suffered from inconsistencies, rendering it unsafe to convict the appellant solely on the dying declaration.
The Court thus extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and acquitted him. The operative part of the judgment read:
“We accordingly allow this appeal and acquit the appellant by setting aside the order of the High Court dated 28.02.2012. The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith.”
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of scrutinizing dying declarations, especially when they are inconsistent and uncorroborated by other evidence. While a dying declaration is a crucial piece of evidence, the Court has reaffirmed that its reliability must be assessed in the context of the entire case.
The ruling provides valuable insights for legal professionals in India, particularly in cases where multiple dying declarations exist. It serves as a reminder that courts must exercise extreme caution before convicting an accused solely on the basis of such statements, ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.
Comments