A dying declaration must not be rejected by the mere fact that it is different from the previous declarations

Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 5th February 2020

Kashmira Devi vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors, Criminal Appeal NO. 724 OF 2019  

Matter 

The deceased Urmila was married to Jagdish Singh. During marriage Urmila’s parents had given dowry, to Urmila’s in-laws, as per their financial capacity. However, the in-laws were not satisfied with the amount of dowry given to them and thus they use to beat and harass Urmila. During her stay at her parental house she often complained of the torturous acts of her in-laws towards her. One day upon having beaten up badly she came to her parental house permanently, but was sent back by her parents, who stated that they were poor and did not have any money left to give to her in-laws, and sent her back. After a few days news spread among the villagers that the deceased (Urmila) was burnt. Upon hearing this Urmila’s mother and her other family members visited to the hospital. When the deceased’s family tried to enquire about the incident from the in-laws they behaved in a very rude manner and refused to inform anything. After the death of the deceased a FIR was filed against Kashmira Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased) on the basis of the dying declaration made by the deceased. After investigating the entire incident, a charge sheet was filed under Section 304(B), and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code. However, after proceedings in Trial Court, the Trial Court acquitted Kashmira Devi (mother-in-law of the deceased), stating that the prosecution failed to prove the accused guilty. However, upon appeal in the High Court, the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and held the accused guilty under Section 304(B), and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code, and sentenced life term imprisonment and a fine of Rs 10,000, in case the appellant is unable to pay the amount then it must undergo six months of rigorous imprisonment.       

Appellant’s Contention 

• It alleged that the High Court ignored the fact that the prosecution failed to provide substantial evidence and prove that the accused was guilty. 
• It stated that High Court ignored the fact that the no report was made ever by the family of the deceased or the deceased itself for the demand of dowry. Only once the matter was reported that too after the death of the deceased. 
• It stated that the prosecution failed to prove that it was a dowry death and not an accidental death. 
• The appellant claimed that High Court relied solely on the dying declarations made by the deceased. Of the three dying declarations made, only the last declaration states that the deceased was set ablaze by her mother-in-law. It further stated that the third declaration was made by the deceased under the pressure of her family. 
• The counsel of the appellant alleged that the High Court ignored the first two dying declarations of the deceased. 

Respondent’s Contention 

• The counsel for the state alleged that the Trial Court came to a wrongful conclusion which was contrary to the legal position. 
• The deceased was married before four years of her death, and there had been several complaints of beating and harassment by the deceased against her in-laws, which was sufficient to come to a conclusion that it was not an incidental death but a dowry death. 
• It stated that when the first two dying declarations were recorded the parents of the deceased were prevented from meeting her by the in-laws, and thus she gave false declarations. However, when the third declaration was recorded her parents were present and thus, she gave the actual statement without ant fear. 
• A woman who dies within seven years of marriage, the husband and in-laws of her are may be accused of dowry death, and since the deceased had died within seven years of marriage there were high chances of it being a dowry death. 
• The fact that the appellant did not inform the parents of the deceased about her being admitted to the hospital on account of burns, is a clear evidence against the appellant. 
• The deceased specifically mentioned that only the mother-in-law was responsible and that that the father-in-law was in another room and came immediately upon hearing her scream and tried to extinguish the fire. If the sole reason of the deceased was to get her in-laws arrested then she would not have accused only her mother-in-law, but the entire family. 

Issues Raised

• The main issue in this case is that if there are multiple dying declarations recorded in a case, then whether all the declarations should be considered as one or independent of each other.  

Held 

•  The conviction of the appellant recorded by the High Court under Section 304(B) and 498(A) of Indian Penal Code through its judgement is upheld and affirmed. 
• The sentence ordered is modified thus, the previous sentence of imprisonment for life was reduced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, which includes the period of sentence of already undergone by the appellant.