In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the convictions of Sita Ram and Onkar Singh in a 25-year-old criminal case from Himachal Pradesh, affirming that a dying declaration remains admissible under Indian law even if the declarant did not anticipate imminent death. The ruling, pronounced by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan in Criminal Appeal No. 228/2013 (Sita Ram & Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh), addressed critical legal questions surrounding the admissibility of a First Information Report (FIR) as a dying declaration and the causal connection between a head injury and death by asphyxia. While affirming the High Court’s findings, the apex court reduced the sentences, citing mitigating factors such as the passage of time and the appellants’ circumstances.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a violent incident on November 16, 2000, in Village Palthin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Prem Lal, a 42-year-old farmer, lodged an FIR (No. 205/2000) at the Ghumarwin Police Station on November 17, 2000, accusing his brother Pyare Lal and two associates, Sita Ram and Onkar Singh, of assaulting him. The FIR detailed a dispute with Pyare Lal over a pile of cow dung, escalating when Pyare Lal summoned Sita Ram and Onkar Singh. Sita Ram allegedly struck Prem Lal on the forehead with a darat (a sickle-like tool), while the others assaulted him with fists and kicks. Prem Lal’s wife, Roshani Devi, intervened, and the accused fled after issuing death threats.
Initially treated for his injuries, Prem Lal reported the incident to the police. However, his health deteriorated, leading to hospitalization. Nine days later, on November 25, 2000, he died. The post-mortem report cited asphyxia as the cause of death, noting a fissured skull fracture and gastroenteritis as contributing factors. The original charges under Sections 451 (house trespass), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were amended to include Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) after his death.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, acquitted all three accused—Sita Ram, Onkar Singh, and Pyare Lal—on May 28, 2005, citing insufficient evidence. The State appealed in Criminal Appeal No. 415/2005, and on September 13, 2012, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh overturned the acquittal. Sita Ram was convicted under Section 304 IPC and sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) with a Rs. 5,000 fine, while Onkar Singh was convicted under Sections 323 and 451 IPC, receiving one year of RI with a fine. Pyare Lal did not appeal. Sita Ram and Onkar Singh then approached the Supreme Court.
Important Legal Issues
The Supreme Court tackled two central issues:
1. Admissibility of the FIR as a Dying Declaration Under Section 32 of the Evidence Act
– The defense argued that Prem Lal’s FIR could not qualify as a dying declaration because it was not made with an expectation of death and did not directly address the cause of death (asphyxia), which occurred nine days later.
2. Causal Nexus Between the Head Injury and Death by Asphyxia
– The appellants contended that the head injury inflicted by Sita Ram lacked a proximate link to Prem Lal’s death by asphyxia, questioning the chain of causation.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations and Ruling
On the Admissibility of the Dying Declaration
The Court decisively ruled that a dying declaration need not be made under an expectation of imminent death to be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Justice Pardiwala observed, “The law in India does not make the admissibility of a dying declaration dependent upon the person’s having a consciousness of the approach of death. Even if the person did not apprehend that he would die, a statement made by him about the circumstances of his death would be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.” Drawing from precedents like State of Haryana v. Mange Ram (2003) and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000), the Court emphasized that the statement must relate to the cause of death or circumstances of the transaction resulting in death, with a proximate connection—criteria met by Prem Lal’s FIR.
The judgment clarified that the credibility of such a statement is a factual matter for the court to assess, independent of oath or cross-examination. “If it is held to be unbelievable, it must be done on the basis of other circumstances. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that a dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration; if it is believed, it requires no corroboration,” the Court noted, rejecting the defense’s contention.
On the Causal Link Between Injury and Death
Addressing the medical issue, the Court explained that a head injury causing a fissured skull fracture could trigger a cascade of complications leading to asphyxia. It cited brain swelling, damage to breathing centers, or impaired blood flow as potential pathways, exacerbated in this case by gastroenteritis—a condition linked to head injuries via the vagus nerve. The Court observed, “In the medico-legal jurisprudence, the cause of death of the deceased would be the wound in the head leading to a fissured fracture in the skull which led to asphyxia and ultimately the death,” affirming a direct causal nexus and dismissing the defense’s argument of remoteness.
Final Ruling
The Court found no error in the High Court’s reversal of the trial court’s acquittal, upholding Sita Ram’s conviction under Section 304 IPC and Onkar Singh’s under Sections 323 and 451 IPC. However, citing mitigating factors—25 years since the incident, Sita Ram’s age (63), and his rural background—the sentences were reduced. Sita Ram’s term was cut from six years to one year RI (with a Rs. 5,000 fine), and Onkar Singh’s from one year to time served (with a Rs. 10,000 fine). Sita Ram was ordered to surrender within eight weeks.
