JAYAMMA AND ANR V. STATE OF KARNATAKA

COURT :  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BENCH :  CHIEF JUSTICE N. V. RAMANA

                     JUSTICE SURYA KANT

                     JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

CITATION : (2021) 6 SCC 213

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jayamma & Anr. v. State of Karnataka reaffirms the principle that while a dying declaration may form the sole basis for conviction, its evidentiary worth must be stringently scrutinized, especially where procedural infirmities or questions about the declarant’s condition exist. This case traversed all three levels of judiciary—Trial Court, High Court, and the Supreme Court—highlighting the complex interplay between substantive criminal law and evidentiary procedures.

Factual Background

The case centres on Jayamma, an elderly and illiterate woman who allegedly sustained severe burn injuries following an altercation with the appellants. It was alleged that they poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze.
She was admitted to a hospital where Dr A. Thippeswamy (PW-16) provided medical care. During her treatment, she gave a statement to the police implicating the appellants under Sections 307, 504, 114, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
Jayamma succumbed to her injuries about thirty hours later. A post-mortem confirmed that she died due to burn shock. The FIR was accordingly altered to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Procedural History

Trial Court: Jayamma’s closing arguments were the main source of support for the prosecution’s case. Except for the police officer and doctor, the majority of the witnesses became antagonistic. The trial court found the evidence to be inadequate and ambiguous, and questioned the validity of the dying declaration, leading to the appellants’ acquittal.

High Court: In response to an appeal, the Karnataka High Court sentenced the appellants in accordance with Section 302/34 IPC after concluding that the dying declaration was sufficient justification for conviction. 

Supreme Court : Following the appellants’ challenge to the High Court’s ruling, the Supreme Court carefully reexamined the dying declaration’s admissibility as evidence.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Was Jayamma suicidal or homicidal at the time of her death?
2. Was Jayamma in a healthy enough state to make the final decision, both mentally and physically?
3. Can a conviction be maintained based solely on the dying declaration in the absence of any supporting evidence?
4. Did the High Court err in overturning the trial court’s acquittal under Section 378 CrPC based solely on the dying declaration?

Arguments

Petitioners

1. Brought up issues regarding the validity and voluntariness of the dying declaration, citing Jayamma’s extreme suffering and illiteracy.
2. Highlighted procedural mistakes, such as the fact that no magistrate was called despite Jayamma having survived for thirty hours and that only the police officer and the doctor were present during the statement.
3. Asserted that the final declaration was inconsistent, might have been changed, and lacked supporting evidence.
4. Emphasized that most of the prosecution’s witnesses, including family members, disagreed with their account.

Respondent

1. Asserted that the final statement was voluntary and consistent.
2. Emphasized that the statement had been confirmed by the doctor and the policeman.
3. Asserted that the High Court was correct to base a conviction solely on the dying declaration.

Judgment

The appellants were acquitted by the trial court because it questioned the validity of the dying declaration and found the evidence to be insufficient and ambiguous. The appellants were sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC after the High Court overturned this decision, ruling that the dying declaration was sufficient for conviction. In its review of the dying declaration on appeal, the Supreme Court took into account Jayamma’s extreme mental and physical suffering, her lack of literacy, and the absence of procedural protections (like a magistrate’s recording). Inconsistencies between the doctor’s and police officer’s statements, as well as the lack of additional witness confirmation, were also noted by the court. The appellants were exonerated by the Supreme Court, which overturned the High Court’s decision because it determined that the dying declaration in this case was not trustworthy enough to support a conviction.

Impact of the Judgement

This ruling made India’s dying declarations law more clear. The Supreme Court reiterated that although a dying declaration may serve as the only foundation for conviction, it must be closely examined, particularly in cases where there have been procedural errors or there are questions regarding the declarant’s capacity. The Court stressed the value of supporting documentation and procedural protections, particularly when the dying declaration serves as the sole piece of evidence used against the defendant. The ruling establishes a standard for circumspect judicial review in related cases.

Personal Analysis

The Supreme Court took a deliberate and impartial stance in this case. As it correctly pointed out, justice cannot be served by relying solely on a dying declaration when there are significant doubts about its accuracy and the declarant’s capacity. In cases where the stakes are as high as life in prison, the verdict highlights the importance of supporting evidence and the need for procedural justice. Additionally, lower courts are reminded to remain vigilant for procedural errors and to carefully evaluate the accuracy of dying declarations. The case adds significantly to the body of knowledge about dying declarations and will provide guidance for courts in future cases of a similar nature.

Conclusion

Even though dying declarations are important, they should be carefully considered before being the sole basis for conviction, according to the landmark decision in Jayamma & Anr. v. State of Karnataka. The Supreme Court decided to acquit the appellants after carefully weighing the facts of the case, the law, and the procedural errors. This ruling will establish a major precedent for the use of dying declarations in Indian criminal law.

The decision upholds the principle that no person should be convicted of a serious offence unless the evidence is both credible and legally admissible. It is a stern reminder that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done—particularly in matters of life and liberty.