Surjit Singh vs State of Punjab
Background
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife by poisoning (aluminium phosphide) after a marriage marked by constant disputes, and both the trial court and the High Court had upheld his conviction based mainly on a dying declaration recorded by a police officer, also named Surjit Singh. However, before that declaration was recorded, the deceased had also told an independent doctor, Dr. Manvir Gupta, that she had consumed the poison herself following a quarrel with her husband.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the doctor who allegedly certified the deceased "fit" to give her statement to the police had, on the police officer's own admission in cross-examination, actually refused to certify her fitness at the time the statement was recorded, and that doctor was never even called as a witness, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. This meant the dying declaration relied on by the prosecution had to be discarded, leaving the doctor's account (that the deceased said she consumed the poison herself) as the only credible version, which was inconsistent with guilt. The remaining evidence, mainly the deceased's mother, was that of an interested witness and insufficient on its own. The Court held the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted the appellant, and cancelled his bail bonds since he was already on bail.
Lesson Learnt
A dying declaration recorded without a doctor's genuine, on-the-record certification of fitness carries little evidentiary weight, and courts will draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for failing to produce the doctor who could have confirmed or denied that fitness.