Author- Vipul Dubey, Lovely Professional University

CASE DETAILS

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Dhan Singh vs State of Haryana, a violent dispute erupted that resulted in the death of Shiv Ram. On July 15, 1997, a violent dispute erupted between family members over a property dispute. Shiv Ram (victim) and his family member were brutally attacked by the appellant, Dhan Singh, along with several co-accused. The injury led to the death of Shiv Ram week later, the prosecution charged Dhan Singh with murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant, Dhan Singh challenged his murder conviction, arguing that the dying declaration report was recorded by the Head constable as it was not recorded by the Magistrate.     

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

• On July 15, 1997, a violent dispute occurred between family members over a property dispute. The appellant, Dhan Singh, Khem Chand, Jai Kishan, Jai Parkash, and Jagdish, along with several others, attacked Shiv Ram and his family with weapons, resulting in severe injuries to Shiv Ram and his family members. Accused Dhan Singh holding the iron rod attacked with a rod on the head of Shiv ram. The fight goes out of control, leading to Shiv Ram being hospitalized. Shiv Ram’s condition was critical and hospitalised after a week, on July 22, 1997, he died. The FIR was registered under 148, 452, 323, and 506 IPC, after the death of Shiv Ram, the charges include Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found Dhan Singh and others guilty of the charges, leading to an appeal to the high court, which upheld the conviction.
• Dhan Singh then approaches the Supreme Court for relief. Challenging the admissibility of the dying declaration and the interpretation of his intent during the incident.

Factual Background of the Case

• Shiv raRamad a dispute with his brother Khem Chand over a residential property, During an argument, Dhan Singh and others attacked Shiv raRamnd his family with weapons, which caused severe injuries to Shiv raRamhis wife Omkali and daughter Bimla injured bodies by blunt weapons. Shiv Ram was initially treated at a local hospital and later transferred to Safdarjung Hospital, where he died. Head Constable Ram Rattan recorded a statement from Shiv Ram in the hospital in detail about the incident and the identification of attackers.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1. Acceptability of dying declaration – Can a dying declaration taken by the Head Constable be accepted as evidence if it was not recorded by a Magistrate?
2. Intent in Homicide – Assessing whether Dhan Singh’s action constituted murder under section 302 IPC or might be classified as culpable Homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 IPC.

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

The lawyer of Dhan Singh presented several arguments to support the appeal

• Inadmissibility of dying Declaration: the dying declaration of Shiv Ram recorded by Head Constable Ram Rattan is not acceptable as per legal protocols. The lawyer of Dhan Singh argued that the declaration should have been recorded by Mathe Gistrate. The counsel added that the prosecution failed to provide an adequate explanation for this inconsistency, stating that the statement was unreliable.
• Lack of Impartial Witness: The lawyer argued that du lack of independent testimony weakened the prosecution’s case and raised doubt about the reliability of the evidence presented in court. The defence highlighted the absence of impartial witnesses to support the story of the incidents that led to the conflict.
• Insufficient Role Designation: The defence argued that the prosecution failed to establish a distinct role for each defendant, including Dhan Sing. They argued that the evidence presented in the court did not support a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Respondent submitted that

The State of Haryana, acting as the prosecution, responded to the plant’s claim with these points:

• Validity of Dying Declaration: The prosecution responded to the appellant that the ing declaration was valid and admissible as it was recorded after the deceased was declared fit and in wegoodtate to make a statement by a doctor. They argued that the circumstances surrounding the recording of the statement did not invalidate.
• Support from Medical Evidence: the prosecution that the death declaration report was supported by medical evidence, including injuries sustained by Shiv Ram and the treatment he received in the spital. The medical evidence supported the claims made in the dying declaration.
• Sufficient evidence of guilt: The Prosecution argued that evidence provided in court including the dying declaration and the medical document is sufficient to prove the guilt of Dhan Singh and other defendants beyond a reasonable doubt

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lays down the provisions for the pepenaltiesor murder, which will involve the death sentence or life imprisonment as the petitioner Dhan Singh was charged under this section following the death of Shiv Ram Ram. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code states that punishment for Culpable Homicide does not amount to murder. In the Supreme Court judgment, the conviction of Dhan sizing was altered from 302 to 304 indicating that the court found insufficient evidence of intent to kill, thus classifying the act as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
2. Section 323 Punishment for voluntarily causing Hurt, this section prescribes punishment for causing voluntarily hurt, causing bodily pain, or infirmity to another person. This section was relevant to injuries caused to Shiv and his family. The punishment under this section can be imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year, with a fine, or both.
3. Section 148- Rioting, Armed with Deadly Weapon. This section prescribes punishment for those who are involved in a riot while armed with a deadly weapon, punishment for term may extend to three years, or with a fine, or both.
4. Section 452 – House-Trespass After Preparation for Hurt, Assault, or Wrongful Restraint It deals with house trespass after preparation for causing hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint. It prescribes punishment for those who commit hothouse trespass with the intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment.
5. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act pertains to the admissibility of dying declarations. This suggests that a person’s statements about the cause of their death or the circumstances surrounding the event that resulted in their death can be considered valid evidence.

JUDGEMENT

Dhan Singh challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Dhan Singh was charged with the murder of Shiv reminder section 30 of the Indian Penal coCodeThe trial court had also convicted him under section 148, 452, and 323 IPC, imposing various sentences. On July 15, 1997, a violent dispute occurred between family members over a property dispute, Shiv Ram and his family being attacked by Dhan Singh and others. Shiv Ram sustained severe injuries and due to those injuries, he Rampassed away on July 22, 1997. The prosecution relied heavily on the dying declaration of Shiv Ram, recorded by Head Constable Ram Rattan, which detailed the attack and identified the accused. The primary legal issue was the dying declaration of Shiv rerecorded by Head Constable Ram Rattan which is not acceptable as per legal protocols. The lawyer of Dhan Singh argued that the declaration should have been recorded by the Magistrate. The counsel added that the prosecution failed to provide an adequate explanation for this inconsistency, stating that the statement is unreliable.  However, the Court found that the dying declaration was recorded after the deceased was deemed fit to make a statement by a doctor, thus upholding its admissibility.

The Supreme Court examined the intention behind Dhan Singh’s action, while the attack was brutal, the evidence did not support a finding of planned murder. The Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, indicating that Dhan Singh acted with the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death but without the intention to kill. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held Dhan Singh guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Admissibility of Dying Declarations: The Court held that a dying declaration recorded by a police officer, or a Head Constable, is admissible in evidence if the victim is declared fit to make a statement by a doctor. The Court stated that while it is preferable for dying declarations to be recorded by a Magistrate the absence of such recording does not automatically invalidate the statement.
2. Evaluation of intention; The Supreme Court examined the nation behind Dhan Singh’s action, while the attack was brutal, the evidence did not support a finding of planned murder, indicating that Dhan Singh acted with the knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death but without the intention to kill. Thus falling under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined in Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

The ratio decidendi of this case establishes important precedents regarding the admissibility of dying declarations, the assessment of intent in homicide cases, and the principles of vicarious liability, thereby contributing to the evolving landscape of criminal law in India.

GUIDELINES 

 Future Case Implications: The Court indicated that its decision should serve as a benchmark for future cases that deal with dying declarations and the assessment of intent in homicide issues. It emphasized the importance for courts to adopt a cautious method in evaluating evidence and determining guilt, particularly in cases arising from domestic or familial conflicts.

OBITER DICTA 

1. The Court noted that the intent to kill must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case
2. The Court emphasized the crucial role of medical experts in assessing a patient’s ability to give a statement. It emphasized that a declaration made by a person deemed mentally competent, as confirmed by a doctor, is significantly important in legal matters.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

There was no reason for Shiv Ram to make a false statement. Even though he was seriously injured by a very strong blow on his head by the iron rod, he was able to specify the role of each accused in the occurrence. As per the statement of PW1, the wife and daughter of deceased Shiv Ram namely, Omkali and Bimla had received injuries, which fully supported the case of the prosecution. It was a case where head injury proved to be fatal leading to the death of Shiv Ram. The injuries suffered by Omkali and Bimla, as per the statement of other witnesses including the Investigating Officer, were received during the occurrence and in the house of Shiv Ram. There was no occasion for Shiv Ram to falsely implicate any person, particularly, his brothers and Dhan Singh, in the present case. The injuries suffered by the deceased are fully corroborated by the statement of PW 1. There was no reason or justification before the Court, not to believe these witnesses and the medico-legal report. Merely, because the members of the family of the deceased wanted to state incorrectly before the Court, it would not give any advantage to the appellant, as the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused with cogent and proper evidence. Thus, for these reasons, we do not find any merit in the challenge to the findings recorded in the impugned judgment. The conviction ought to be under Section 304 Part II of the C and not underSectionn 022 of the IPC. For these circumstances and in line with the judgments afore referred, we are of the considered view that the offence of the appellant could be altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Consequently, we hold the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 304 Part II and award him rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of these, the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [(1979) 4 SCC 332]
2. Cherlopalli Cheliminabi Sahed v. State of A.P. [(2003) 2 SCC 571]
3. State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar [(1985) 4 SCC 476]
4. Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan [(2004) 10 SCC 113]
5. Jagriti Devi v. State of H.P. [(2009) 14 SCC 771]
6. Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana [(2009) 15 SCC 635]

Important Statutes Referred

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973