Combined Commentary: State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) and the Irrelevance of the Two-Finger Test

Introduction

The State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) judgement is a major unification of two critical branches of Indian criminal law, the law of evidence, especially concerning dying declarations, and the constitutional imperative to safeguard the dignity and rights of the victims of sexual offences. When one reads it along with the categorical denouncement of the two-finger test by the Supreme Court, they can see that the decision in question can be viewed as a strong, victim-focused interpretation of constitutional morality, evidentiary rigour, and human rights.

I. Evidentiary Foundations in Shailendra Kumar Rai

1. Evidentiary Value and Admissibility of the Dying Declaration

The high point of the prosecution’s case in Shailendra Kumar Rai was the dying statement of the victim. 

In Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958) and Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998), the Court had determined that a dying declaration may be the only reason to convict a person as long as it gives rise to confidence, is voluntary and is taken in the presence of a fit mental mind. By applying these concepts, the Court in Shailendra Kumar Rai deemed the statement reliable due to its certification by a medical practitioner, internal consistency, and support from external circumstances. It was therefore considered substantive evidence sufficient to prove a conviction.

In addition, based on the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985), the Court made it clear that medical opinion about the concept of fitness is not conclusive; the ultimate test is whether the Court is satisfied that the statement is actually true. The Court thus considered the substance, sense and conditions of the declaration and not an automatic rejection on technical grounds.

2. The right distinction of the Moti Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) Causation vs Chronology

Among the key doctrinal revisions that the Supreme Court made was its differentiation of Moti Singh v. State of U.P. (1963). The High Court had relied on the mistaken belief that a dying statement ought to have pertained to the known cause of death. That was, however, a case that lacked post-mortem evidence of the injuries relating to death. In Shailendra Kumar Rai, the Supreme Court identified an evident medical nexus between the burn injuries and the eventual cause of death, which was the septicaemia. The Court was keen to point out that a causal connection or cause and effect relationship, and not just the time lapse between harm and death, is what counts. As a result, the dying statement still had the entire evidentiary validity.

3. Time Gap or Form of Declaration Irrelevance

It was reiterated in the judgment that lapse of time and the manner in which the dying declaration is recorded do not automatically reduce the admissibility of the dying declaration.

In Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1989), the Supreme Court said that the time between the incident, declaration and death does not matter as long as the declaration is otherwise reliable. In a similar argument, Shailendra Kumar Rai affirmed this claim and admitted that a statement that had been taken weeks earlier was admissible because it was made before death.

Similarly, in Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (2000), the Court acknowledged that dying declarations do not have to be reported by Magistrates only. The statements noted by the police officers, or even by the individuals, can be counted on provided that their genuineness and free will are proved. Using this principle, the Court affirmed the police-recorded declaration in the case of Shailendra Kumar Rai after confirming the medical certification of the same.

II. The Two-Finger Test: Irrelevance by Absoluteness and Prohibition by Constitutional Decree

1. Legal and Constitutional Position

The radical part of Shailendra Kumar Rai is that it harshly criticises the two-finger test. The Court ruled that the test lacks any evidentiary value in the process of determining consent, rape taking place or the believability of the survivor.

Drawing from Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court reiterated that the two-finger test breaches the inherent right of a survivor to dignity, privacy and bodily integrity in Article 21 of the Constitution. What previously was judicial advice was turned into a legal prohibition, and the Court said categorically that such a test is professional misconduct.

The verdict conforms to Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which specifically prohibits the use of sexual character or previous sexual experience of the victim to demonstrate consent. The Court therefore balanced constitutional rights, legislative requirements and the principles of evidentiary standards.

2. Victim-Centric Approach and Human Dignity

The Court, by denying the two-finger test, affirmed a jurisprudential abandonment of a more survivor-oriented adjudicative approach. In line with other rulings like Ramesh v. State of Haryana (2017), the Court restated that a testimony of a survivor cannot be undermined on the grounds of patriarchal stereotypes or invasive medical interventions.

The Court made it clear that medical examinations should be confined to the establishment of injuries and gathering of forensic evidence in a way that would not infringe on autonomy and dignity. All practices based on ideas of habituation to sex are unconstitutional, unsound and immoral.

III. Key Takeaways

1. The cause-and-effect relationship of the injury and death is the decisive factor, and not the interval between the injury and death.
2. The credibility of a dying declaration is more significant than the form or recorder of the declaration.
3. The two-finger examination is not legally, medically or evidentiarily relevant.
4. Carrying out the two-finger test is against Articles 14 and 21 and is a professional misconduct.

Conclusion

State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai is the reassertion of the classical evidence law and constitutional values in the modern context. The Supreme Court unambiguously did not allow the two-finger test to override human dignity by ensuring that procedural rigor is not at the expense of human dignity through the proper application of the doctrines on dying declarations. The case award is an example of a fully-fledged legal system, one which sticks to precedent, but is sensitive to the changing constitutional morals, and so, a case lawbreaker in protecting the rights of victims in Indian criminal law.

Cases mentioned:

1. State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) 14 SCC 299
2. Kushal Rao v. State of Bombay (1958) AIR SC 22
3. Moti Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) AIR SC 900
4. State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 1 SCC 552
5. Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1989) SCC (Cri) 269
6. Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517
7. Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 1 SCC 283
8. Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 643
9. Ramesh v. State of Haryana (2017) 1 SCC 715

Share: