1. Conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on a dying declaration and recovery of a weapon. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1719
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Tarun Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3810 of 2025, (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 3965 of 2025)
Decided On : 01-09-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Tewari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv. Mr. Aniket Kumar Parcha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha, Adv. Ms. Seema Sindhu, Adv. Ms. Kirti, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajay Tewari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv. Mr. Aniket Kumar Parcha, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, AOR Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Ms. Drishti Rawal, Adv. Ms. Drishti Saraf, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Mayur Goyal, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha, Adv. Ms. Seema Sindhu, Adv. Ms. Kirti, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv.
The court reinforced the principle that a dying declaration must be credible and corroborated; otherwise, it cannot sustain a conviction, especially where reasonable doubt exists due to procedural lapses.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction for murder - Prosecution's case hinged on a dying declaration, but evidence failed to prove its reliability - Key witness turned hostile, and medical conditions of the deceased contradicted the dying declaration's validity - No scientific corroboration linking recovered knife to the deceased - Judgment of High Court and trial court set aside, accused acquitted. (Paras 66-67)
(B) Right to fair trial - Ensuring proper legal representation and adequate time for preparation is essential in criminal appeals, especially for life sentences - High Court's procedure in appointing amicus curiae without sufficient time deemed inadequate. (Paras 33-39)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murdering the deceased based on a dying declaration. Witness testimony contradicted the prosecution's claims about the identity of the assailants and the medical condition of the deceased. Key evidence such as the fitness certificate was not substantiated. (Paras 31-66)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to establish the reliability of the dying declaration and relevant evidence did not support the conviction. The appellant was acquitted because reasonable doubt existed regarding guilt. (Paras 66-67)
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility and validity of the dying declaration, identification of the assailants, and procedural adherence by the trial court. (Paras 31, 66)
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the conviction could not stand due to serious doubts about the dying declaration’s authenticity, lack of scientific evidence, and improper handling by the courts regarding legal representation. (Paras 66-67)
Result: Acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on the reliability of the dying declaration and the fairness of the appellate hearing process. (Para 3 , 29 , 30 )
3. The dying declaration was unreliable due to lack of medical corroboration, unidentified certifying doctor, and absence of recording officer's satisfaction. (Para 41 , 47 , 50 , 54 , 55 , 59 , 60 , 63 )
4. A dying declaration cannot be the sole basis of conviction if it is suspicious, lacks medical fitness corroboration, or contradicts ocular evidence. (Para 62 , 64 )
5. Impugned judgments set aside and appellant acquitted of charges. (Para 67 , 68 )
6. What are the standards for appointing an amicus curiae in criminal appeals involving life imprisonment?
The appointment must not be a mere formality. Counsel must be granted reasonable time—normally a minimum of seven days—to study records, consult the accused, and prepare the defense to ensure a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
7. Can the testimony of a witness declared hostile be used by the court?
Yes, the evidence of a hostile witness is not entirely washed off the record. The court may rely on portions of the testimony that are found to be creditworthy, consistent, or corroborated by other reliable evidence on record. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 )
8. What factors render a dying declaration unreliable for sustaining a conviction?
Reliability is undermined by the failure to identify or examine the certifying doctor, absence of contemporaneous medical records, failure of the recording officer to note their own satisfaction of fitness, and omission of the recording time. (Para 50 , 54 , 55 , 59 , 60 , 63 )
9. Does the recovery of a weapon alone establish guilt in a murder trial?
Mere recovery of a weapon is inconsequential without scientific corroboration, such as a serological report establishing that the blood found on the weapon matches the blood group of the deceased. (Para 20 , 65 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal by special leave takes exception to the judgment dated 24th September, 2024 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana1[Hereinafter being referred to as the “High Court”] in CRA-D-1161-DB-2013 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 3 74(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732[For short, “CrPC”] was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 26th August, 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala3[Hereinafter being referred to as the “trial Court”] in Sessions Case No. 11-SC of 2012 was affirmed.
4. By the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 18604[For short, “IPC”] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Brief Facts: -
5. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 1st April, 2012, an information was received at the police station Mullana at around 05:30 PM regarding admission of one Munish Kumar into GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh in an injured condition. On receipt of this information, Sub- Inspector, Somnath (PW-17), along with Head Constable, Dharam Pal (PW-11) proceeded to the said hospital where they were apprised that injured Munish Kumar had been shifted to the PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. Accordingly, the police officials proceeded to the PGI, Chandigarh and filed an application (Exh. P-32) before the concerned Medical Officer seeking opinion regarding the fitness of Munish Kumar to give a statement. It is stated that the Medical Officer recorded his opinion (Exh. P-33) declaring the injured Munish Kumar to be fit for making a statement. Thereupon, the Sub-Inspector, Somnath (PW-17), proceeded to record the statement of the injured Munish Kumar (Exh. P-34) wherein he alleged inter alia as below: -
“He was a resident of Village Jahangirpur, P.S. Mullana and was doing a private job. On 31st March, 2012, at about 10:00 PM, he and his brother Amit were returning to their village from Ambala by car. When they reached near Mullana, they were intercepted by a Scorpio car and an Alto car. Three persons alighted from one of the vehicles, two of whom were alleged to be Bittoo and Sanjay and the other person was connected to Krishna Transport who went by the name of Tarun Sharma. He did not know the identity of the other man. These persons broke into his car and launched an attack on him. Tarun Sharma inflicted a knife blow on the right side of his stomach whereas Sanjay inflicted a knife blow on his head. Bittoo and the other bearded person held him down. The assailants beat him up mercilessly. Amit was kept confined in the car. The assailants took away his mobile and the purse. Amit called his friends who got Munish admitted at the CHC, Mullana from where he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Ambala Cantt and then to General Hospital, Ambala City. Subsequently, he was referred to GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh and thereafter was referred to PGI Chandigarh.”
6. The aforesaid statement of the injured Munish Kumar was treated to be the first information report of the incident and based thereupon, an FIR No. 58 dated 1st April, 2012 came to be registered at P.S. Mullana for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
7. The investigation was undertaken by Sub- Inspector, Somnath (PW-17). Munish Kumar expired on 14th April, 2012, upon which offence punishable under Section 3 02 IPC was added to the case. Inquest panchnama was drawn and thereafter, postmortem was carried out on the dead body of the deceased and statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused Tarun Sharma (accused No.1/appellant herein), Sandeep Sharma (accused No. 2), Balwinder Singh (accused No. 3) and Deepak Bhardwaj (accused No. 4) were arrested. It is alleged that, acting
