Introduction

The case of MAKHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2022 INSC 829) revolves around the interpretation and reliability of conflicting dying declarations in the context of a dowry death under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant, Makhan Singh, was convicted by the trial court for the alleged dowry death of his wife, Manjit Kaur, based on two conflicting dying declarations recorded by different Judicial Magistrates. The High Court upheld the conviction, albeit reducing the sentence from 10 to 7 years. Dissatisfied with the appellate decision, Makhan Singh approached the Supreme Court for a final verdict.

The key issues in this case include:

• The credibility and reliability of conflicting dying declarations.
• The procedural adherence in recording these declarations.
• The application of benefit of doubt in cases with contradictory evidence.

Parties involved:

• Appellant: Makhan Singh
• Respondent: The State of Haryana

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court reviewed the circumstances surrounding the two dying declarations provided by the deceased, Manjit Kaur. The first declaration (Ex. DO/C), recorded by Ms. Vani Gopal Sharma (DW-1), exonerated Makhan Singh and stated that the death was accidental due to the consumption of medicine by mistake. This declaration was corroborated by Dr. Sobti (PW-1), who affirmed that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state during the statement.

The second declaration (Ex. PE), recorded by Ms. Kanchan Nariala (PW-6) three days later, implicated Makhan Singh and his parents, alleging that they forcibly administered poison to Manjit Kaur. However, this declaration lacked medical verification of the deceased's fitness to make the statement and was recorded in the presence of the appellant's relatives, raising concerns of tutelage and coercion.

The Supreme Court concluded that the first dying declaration was more reliable and devoid of external pressures, whereas the second declaration was questionable. Consequently, the Court acquitted Makhan Singh, setting aside the High Court and trial court judgments.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shape the understanding and admissibility of dying declarations in Indian jurisprudence:

• Harjit Kaur v. State Of Punjab (1999) 6 SCC 545
• Sayarabano Alias Sultanabegum v. State Of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 562
• Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 265
• Munnawar v. State of U.P. (2010) 5 SCC 451
• Lakhan v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 8 SCC 514
• Shudhakar v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 7 SCC 569
• Raju Devade v. State Of Maharashtra (2016) 11 SCC 673
• Kashmira Devi v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 11 SCC 343
• State of U.P. v. Veerpal (2022) 4 SCC 741

These precedents collectively emphasize the critical evaluation of dying declarations, focusing on their authenticity, the mental and physical state of the declarant, and the presence of any external influences during their recording.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on the principles outlined in the Lakhan case, which delineates the parameters for accepting dying declarations as sole evidence for conviction. The key considerations include:

• Truth and Reliability: The declaration must be free from any form of coercion or manipulation.
• Declarant's State: The declarant should be in a sound mental and physical state to make a statement.
• Absence of Tutelage: The statement should not be influenced by external parties.

In this case, the first dying declaration met these criteria, being recorded in a controlled environment with medical verification. Conversely, the second declaration lacked such safeguards, was recorded without medical oversight, and was made in the presence of the appellant's relatives, suggesting possible coercion.

Additionally, the Court underscored the importance of judicial discretion in weighing conflicting evidence, advocating for the preservation of the appellant's right to benefit of doubt, especially when inconsistencies arise between credible statements.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent criteria for the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations in criminal proceedings. It underscores the judiciary's role in meticulously scrutinizing the context and conditions under which such declarations are made. Future cases involving conflicting dying declarations will likely reference this judgment to assess the credibility of each statement based on procedural adherence and external influences.

Moreover, the decision emphasizes the necessity for law enforcement and judicial officers to adhere to prescribed protocols during the recording of such pivotal evidence, ensuring that the rights of the accused are safeguarded against potential judicial errors.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Dying Declaration

A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, regarding the circumstances of their impending death. Under Indian law, it is considered a form of evidence and is admissible in court without the usual requirements of corroboration, provided it meets certain criteria of reliability and voluntariness.

Section 304-B of the IPC

Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code deals with dowry death. It penalizes the death of a woman under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, where it is shown that she was subjected to harassment for dowry. The provision aims to protect women from dowry-related abuses.

Benefit of Doubt

The principle of 'benefit of doubt' stipulates that when there is reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused, the court should acquit. This principle upholds the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of the criminal justice system.

Tutelage

Tutelage refers to the influence or control exerted by one person over another, particularly in a manner that affects the latter’s free will. In legal terms, a statement obtained under tutelage or coercion may be deemed unreliable.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in MAKHAN SINGH v. THE STATE OF HARYANA serves as a pivotal reference for evaluating the credibility of conflicting dying declarations. By meticulously analyzing the procedural rigor and contextual factors surrounding each declaration, the Court upheld the sanctity of genuine, uncoerced testimonies while safeguarding the rights of the accused against miscarriages of justice. This judgment not only clarifies the standards for admissibility of dying declarations but also reinforces the judiciary's commitment to fairness and due process in criminal adjudications.