Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Dying Declarations Form Basis of Judgment

The case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Veerpal & Anr. deals with the legal implications of multiple dying declarations and the evidentiary value of such statements in a murder trial. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s acquittal of the accused and reinstated the conviction based on a dying declaration made by the deceased, which the Court found credible and sufficient to convict the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case

The incident that led to this case occurred on December 20, 2011, when the deceased, Radha Devi, was allegedly set on fire by her in-laws after a dispute regarding money. The deceased was severely burned and managed to survive long enough to make two separate dying declarations. The first was recorded by the police on the day of the incident, and the second was recorded by a Magistrate two days later.

The initial First Information Report (FIR) was filed by Bengali Babu, the complainant, after he was informed by the deceased’s daughter that her mother had been severely burned by her father-in-law and mother-in-law over a monetary dispute. The investigation was carried out by the police, and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 (murder) and Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/murder-conviction-overturned-supreme-court-acquits-two-accused-citing-contradictions/

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that:

• The dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate on December 22, 2011, should be accepted as the sole evidence against the accused.
• The first dying declaration made to the police on December 20, 2011, although recorded in compliance with the law, was inconsistent with the later statement.
• The Magistrate’s dying declaration should be given greater weight due to the formalities followed and the presence of the doctor who certified the victim’s state of consciousness.
• The High Court’s judgment was flawed because it dismissed both dying declarations without adequately examining the circumstances and medical evidence supporting the statements.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, Veerpal and his wife, the accused, argued that:

• The dying declarations made by the deceased were inconsistent and contradictory. The first declaration did not name the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, while the second declaration made a complete change in the narrative, accusing the entire family.
• There was no corroborative evidence to support the dying declaration, making it unreliable as the sole basis for conviction.
• The deceased’s mental state was questionable due to her severe physical injuries, which could have affected her ability to make a truthful statement.
• The alleged motive for the crime (a demand for money) was not substantiated, and the accused should not be convicted on the basis of one person’s statements without supporting evidence.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court evaluated the evidence presented, especially the two conflicting dying declarations. The Court noted that while multiple dying declarations may be subject to scrutiny, they could still form the basis of conviction if:

“The declaration made by the deceased was truthful, and the circumstances surrounding the statement confirm its voluntary nature, free from external influence or coercion.”

The Court also observed that:

• The second dying declaration, recorded by the Magistrate, was more detailed and coherent than the first, which was recorded by the police.
• The Magistrate, being an independent officer, had no interest in the case, and his recording of the dying declaration was credible and trustworthy.
• The medical evidence confirmed that the deceased was conscious and able to understand the situation when the second dying declaration was recorded, making it more reliable.
• The first declaration, recorded by the police, did not name the accused, but this inconsistency could be explained by the shock the victim experienced in the aftermath of the traumatic event.
• Considering the evidence, including the medical testimony, the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate held more weight.

Final Judgment