ARVIND SINGH V STATE OF BIHAR

Question 1

ARVIND SINGH V STATE OF BIHAR (FACTS)

Answer 1

This case pertains to the tragic death of a young woman, Minta Devi, who succumbed to severe burn injuries allegedly inflicted upon her by her husband and in-laws. The prosecution’s case was built upon the events leading up to her death, which indicated a history of harassment and cruelty inflicted upon her due to demands for dowry.

Minta Devi was married to Arvind Singh, the primary accused in this case. Over time, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband and his family. The situation escalated on the night of the incident when Arvind Singh, along with his family members, allegedly conspired to kill Minta Devi. As per the FIR and subsequent investigations, the accused forcibly poured kerosene over Minta Devi and set her on fire. The severe burns led to her untimely death.
The prosecution further highlighted that when Minta Devi sustained burn injuries, her in-laws not only refused to take her to the hospital but also actively prevented her parental family from intervening. Despite the attempts of her parents to provide medical aid, she succumbed to her injuries before any help could be extended.

Upon trial, the Court analysed the evidence and concluded that the case was a clear instance of bride torture and dowry demand. However, the investigating authorities were unable to collect substantial evidence regarding prior demands for dowry before the incident. Due to this lack of pre-incident evidence, the Hon’ble High Court decided to set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused Janardan Singh, Lilawati Devi, and Navin Kumar Singh under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as under Section 120B IPC. Nevertheless, their conviction under Section 498A IPC, read with Section 34 IPC, was upheld, and bail bonds were granted in their favour.

Regarding the husband, Arvind Singh, the Court found him guilty of murder and cruelty against his wife. Consequently, his conviction was modified from Section 304B IPC to Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Additionally, he was convicted under Section 498A IPC and sentenced to three years of imprisonment for subjecting Minta Devi to cruelty. Following the modification of his conviction, Arvind Singh appealed before this Court to challenge the verdict.

Question 2

ARVIND SINGH V STATE OF BIHAR (ISSUES RAISED)

Answer 2

1. Whether the two dying declarations can be held to be true and voluntary and can be relied upon, or should they be excluded from consideration due to the infirmities pointed out by Mr Keswani, appearing for the appellants?
2. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Learned Sessions Judge?

Question 3

ARVIND SINGH V STATE OF BIHAR (ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE APPELLANTS)

Answer 3

1. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the appointed investigating officer, by making an assumption based on the circumstances of the case, had added an allegation concerning the demand for dowry. The reasoning behind this was that it was virtually inserted against the accused.
2. Furthermore, the learned counsels appearing for the appellants contended that the conversion of the charges from Section 304B to Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. They substantiated that the court, which has recorded findings, was fully aware that the allegations regarding the demand for dowry were interpolated and subsequently inserted in the attested FIR. Thus, they argued that it would be unfair to rely on such half-baked information.
3. Additionally, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that since the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against the accused, the original acquittal by the lower court was justified. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is unfair and unsustainable.
4. It was also contended that when an offence is charged under Section 302 IPC, the accused must be properly informed of the charges to avoid prejudice and partial treatment. Furthermore, the evidence brought forth by the prosecution should be clearly explained to the accused, and failing to do so would result in a grave injustice to the defence.
5. Likewise, the learned counsel contended that the evidence on record does not justify the conversion of charges against the accused. They argued that such proceedings were entirely erroneous and unjustified.

Question 4

ARVIND SINGH V STATE OF BIHAR (ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENTS)

Answer 4

1. The counsel appearing on behalf of the State refuted the claims of the appellants and argued that while the allegation regarding the demand for dowry was inserted subsequently, it could not be considered as interpolation, as it had substantial merit.
2. Furthermore, the counsel for the respondents argued that the dying declaration made by the deceased was solid evidence proving the husband’s guilt under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution placed heavy reliance on the reports submitted by Dr K. Vishnupriya, the medical officer, who confirmed that the deceased was in a fully conscious state when she made the dying declaration to her mother, pointing out that her husband and in-laws were responsible for her injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent substantiated the declaration made without the presence of a doctor by referring to the case of Mani Ram v. The State of M.P. In this case, the court held that when a declarant is in the hospital, the person recording the declaration should do so in the presence of a medical practitioner. However, the court also ruled that this requirement was merely a procedural rule, and the validity of the declarations should ultimately be tested by the courts.
4. Furthermore, the learned counsel referred to another case, Ravi Chander v. The State of Punjab, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the absence of a doctor’s examination does not invalidate a dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate. The Court stated that the Executive Magistrate is a neutral and responsible officer and that there was no material evidence to suggest that he had any bias against the accused or fabricated the dying declaration. Therefore, the genuineness of the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate should not be questioned.

Question 5

ARVIND V STATE OF BIHAR (ANALYSIS BY THE COURT)

Answer 5

The Hon’ble Supreme Court placed reliance on the case of Ram Nath Madhoprasad & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which was subsequently overruled by a five-judge bench in the case of Tarachand Damu Sutar v. The State of Maharashtra. The Court stated that:
“There is no denying that a dying declaration should be treated with care and caution because the maker of the statement cannot be cross-examined.”

Further, the Court observed that the judgment passed by the High Court was not incorrect per se, as the mother, who was allegedly a witness to the dying declaration, was also an interested party in the case. While this does not automatically discredit the evidence presented in court, the Supreme Court emphasised that such testimony would only be sustainable if corroborated by medical reports.

Additionally, the Court noted that the dying declaration implicated all four accused in a similar manner, and there was no additional evidence specifically implicating the husband that would justify the High Court’s decision to reduce the charges from Section 304B to Section 302 IPC. The Hon’ble Court clearly stated that the dying declaration given to the mother was not credible, and the High Court erred in accepting it.

Likewise, the Court remarked that empathetic submissions made by the respondents could not override the rule of law. In any criminal case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence. Since this burden was not met in the present case, the Court ruled that the conviction and life sentence imposed on the accused could not be sustained, and the sentence of life imprisonment was set aside.

Furthermore, the charges under Section 498A IPC were also deemed unsustainable, leading the Court to conclude that both the Trial Court and the High Court had erred in their judgments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.