2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Sudershan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of HP – Respondent
CR.A/216/2024

Dying declarations under Section 32(1) Evidence Act are admissible regardless of the declarant's expectation of death. Related witnesses can be natural witnesses. Conviction under Section 504 IPC requires proof of intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, not mere abuse.

Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 32(1) - Dying Declaration - A statement made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, is admissible as a dying declaration regardless of whether the person was under the expectation of death at the time of making the statement (Paras 14, 17, 18 and 19). Such a declaration can form the sole basis for conviction if found to be truthful and voluntary, although corroboration is a rule of prudence (Paras 22 and 61).

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 - Common Intention - Joint liability is fastened upon co-perpetrators who act in concert in furtherance of a common intention, which may be formed at the spur of the moment during the occurrence itself (Paras 49-52).

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 504 and 506 - Intentional Insult and Criminal Intimidation - Mere use of abusive language without evidence of an intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace is insufficient for conviction under Section 504 (Paras 55-58). For an offence under Section 506, it must be established that the threat was made with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened (Paras 59-62).

(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 71 - Where an act is an offence under two different sections, the offender is liable to be convicted of the offence punishable with the more severe punishment (Para 63). (E) Appreciation of Evidence - Testimony of related witnesses is not necessarily unreliable and they can be regarded as natural witnesses, provided their evidence is intrinsically reliable, inherently probable, and withstands the rigour of cross-examination (Paras 44-47).

Facts of the case:
Following a dispute over land, a person was constructing a lavatory when the appellant and a juvenile intervened to stop the work. The appellant pushed the deceased, causing him to hit a hard surface, and the juvenile inflicted a blow to the deceased's head with a brick. The deceased succumbed to the head injuries. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 and 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Findings of Court:
The conviction under Section 304 Part II is maintained as the injury to the head was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The conviction under Section 341 is set aside due to lack of evidence of restraint. Convictions under Sections 504 and 506 are set aside as the ingredients of intentional insult and intent to cause alarm were not proved. The conviction under Section 323 is set aside in view of Section 71 of the IPC since the appellant was convicted of the more severe offence of Section 304 Part II.

Issues: Whether the statement of the injured is admissible as a dying declaration; whether testimony of related witnesses is reliable enough for conviction; whether common intention was shared between the appellant and the juvenile; and whether the ingredients for offences under Sections 341, 504, and 506 were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the victim's statement relates to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in death and is therefore a valid dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Joint liability under Section 34 IPC is applicable as the actors worked in concert. Mere abuse does not attract Section 504 IPC without proof of provocative intentional insult, and criminal intimidation under Section 506 requires proof of intent to cause alarm.

Result: The present appeal is partly allowed, and the conviction of the accused under Section 304 Part II of the IPC is maintained, but the sentence imposed is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of ₹50,000. In default of payment of fine, the accused will undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304, Part II. The rest of the conviction and sentences are set aside.