In, Makhan Singh vs The State of Haryana, While quashing the Lower Court's order for Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 Years, the Supreme Court held that while the court granted Benefit of Doubt to the Appellant's parents on the same evidence, the Appeallant is likewise entitled to such Benefit of Doubt and so deserves Acquittal. Furthermore, Sc decided that in the case of Multiple Dying Declarations, the court must examine the truthfulness of such dying declarations.
Facts
Deceased Manjit Kaur was married to the Appellant. It is the prosecution case that the appellant used to demand dowry from the parents of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the deceased fed up with the torture consumed poisonous substances wherein the deceased stated that she was suffering from fever and she took medicine by mistake. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased requested a recording of the states of the deceased under Section 164 of the Cr.P.c. The judicial Magistrate recorded the statement, whereby the deceased stated that her husband had demanded Rs. 6 lakhs go to the USA. According to the said dying declaration, the appellant as well as his parents administered the said poisonous substance to the deceased. On the basis of the second dying declaration, an FIR was registered. Charges were framed for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC.
At the conclusion of the Trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 304B of the IPC. However, the trial court found that the other two accused, i.e., the parents of the appellant were entitled to get the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. In an Appeal before the High Court, it reduced the sentence awarded to 7 years.
Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the Supreme court of India challenging the order of Trial Court & High Court.
Appellant: that in case of conflicting dying declarations, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the order of conviction deserves to be set aside.
Respondent: that each of the dying declarations has to be appreciated independently. That the courts below have rightly found that the first dying declaration was given by the deceased Manjit Kaur under the influence of her husband, whereas the second dying declaration was given by her independently out of her free will.
Court Observation ;
The Single Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court while noting the key essential of a dying declaration & while deciding; which dying declaration will be considered observed that;
- the Court is required to examine ,whether the dying declaration is true and reliable; and to whether it has been recorded by a person at a time when the deceased was fit physically and mentally to make the declaration;
- Further, in case of, multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon. However, this is with the condition that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness.
Court Judgment
The Supreme Court while rejecting the order of the Trial court & High Court has held that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the first dying declaration will have to be considered to be more reliable and trustworthy than the second one). In any case, the benefit of the doubt which has been given to the other accused by the trial court, ought to have been equally given to the present appellant when the evidence was totally identical against all the three accused.
Hence, the appellant is acquitted of all the charges charged with and his bail bonds.
Case: Makhan Singh vs The State of Haryana
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1290 OF 2010
Bench: Hon’ble Mr Justice B.R. Gavai
Decided on: 16thAugust, 2022.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments