Makhan Singh vs The State of Haryana
Background
The appellant, Makhan Singh, was convicted under Section 304-B IPC (dowry death) for the death of his wife Manjit Kaur, who died in 1998 after allegedly being forced to consume a poisonous substance amid ongoing dowry demands. Two dying declarations existed: an earlier one recorded by a magistrate in which the deceased said she had accidentally taken the wrong medicine and exonerated everyone, and a later one recorded three days afterward implicating the appellant and his in-laws. The trial court convicted the appellant while acquitting his parents (co-accused) on the same evidence, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction while reducing the sentence from 10 to 7 years, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Makhan Singh. It held that where multiple dying declarations conflict, courts must scrutinise the circumstances of each (including whether a doctor certified the declarant's fitness, whether relatives had access at the time of recording, and the possibility of tutoring) rather than mechanically preferring one recorded by a magistrate. The Court found the first dying declaration was properly certified by a doctor as voluntary and made while the deceased was of sound mind, whereas the second was recorded without any such medical certification and in circumstances where the deceased's relatives were present, raising a real possibility of tutoring; the investigating DSP had also opined the second statement was tutored. Since the trial court had already given the co-accused parents benefit of the doubt on identical evidence, the Court held the same benefit was wrongly denied to the appellant.
Lesson Learnt
When a dying declaration is later contradicted by another, courts must weigh the reliability of each based on independent medical certification of fitness and freedom from outside influence at the time of recording: a later statement is not automatically more credible than an earlier one simply because it was also recorded by a magistrate.