The doctrine of dying declaration occupies a special place in criminal jurisprudence. Based on the maxim nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire (a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth), Indian law accepts such declarations as an exception to the rule against hearsay. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that while a dying declaration may form the sole basis of conviction, it must be unimpeachable, voluntary, and made when the declarant was in a fit mental and physical condition.
In Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court revisited these principles, overturning a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)/(Section 103 BNS) that had been founded primarily on a questionable dying declaration. The judgment emphasises that where infirmities pervade such evidence, courts cannot rely on it as the sole foundation for conviction.
This case underscores the indispensable requirement of procedural fairness and evidentiary integrity in criminal trials.
Factual Background
On the night of 31 March 2012, Munish Kumar and his brother Amit were returning to their village when they were allegedly attacked near Mullana by occupants of two vehicles—a Scorpio and an Alto. According to the police, Munish was stabbed by Tarun Sharma (the appellant) and another accused, Sanjay, while others restrained him. Injured severely, Munish was rushed through various hospitals and finally admitted to PGI Chandigarh.
The police claimed that Sub-Inspector Somnath recorded Munish’s statement (treated as his dying declaration and FIR), in which he named Tarun Sharma and others as assailants. Based on this, an FIR under Sections 323, 324, and 506 IPC was registered, later altered to Section 302 when Munish succumbed to his injuries on 14 April 2012
After the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted Tarun Sharma under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, while acquitting the co-accused for lack of evidence. The High Court affirmed this decision in 2024, despite serious procedural irregularities in hearing the appeal.
On further appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinised the reliability of the dying declaration and the fairness of the process, ultimately setting aside the conviction.
Issues
- Whether a conviction can rest solely on a dying declaration that suffers from serious infirmities.
- What level of procedural safeguards must be ensured while recording and relying upon a dying declaration?
- Whether the High Court erred in denying the appellant effective legal representation by rushing through the appeal.
- Whether the recovery of a weapon without scientific corroboration has evidentiary value?
Evidentiary Landscape
Hostile Witnesses
Amit Bakshi (PW-1), brother of the deceased and alleged eyewitness, turned hostile. He testified that the incident occurred in darkness and that the accused present in court had not attacked Munish. He further deposed that Munish became unconscious after sustaining injuries and remained so until his death, except for a brief period, but was never in a position to speak.
Other key witnesses, including Ashok Kumar (PW-2), also failed to support the prosecution.
Medical Evidence
Doctors who treated Munish at CHC Mullana and Ambala City confirmed his grave condition. They noted he was drowsy, smelled of alcohol, and had low blood pressure. Importantly, none of the doctors stated that Munish was capable of giving a coherent statement during treatment.
The prosecution, however, failed to produce medical records from GMCH Chandigarh and PGI, or examine the doctor who allegedly certified Munish fit to make a statement (Exh. P-33).
Recovery of Weapon
A knife was recovered at the instance of Tarun Sharma. However, no serological report linked the blood on the weapon to the deceased. Without such corroboration, recovery was inconsequential.
The Dying Declaration
The case rested almost entirely on Munish’s alleged statement (Exh. P-34). Yet, multiple infirmities plagued it:
- The recording officer (PW-17) did not note his satisfaction with Munish’s fitness to speak.
- The identity of the certifying doctor was never disclosed or examined.
- The statement bore no time of recording, making it impossible to correlate with Munish’s medical condition.
- Signatures on the document were not independently verified by close relatives.
- Contradictions arose: one alleged assailant, Sanjay, was exonerated during the investigation, and another, Bittoo, was acquitted at trial.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
1. On Procedural Fairness
The Court first condemned the High Court’s approach of appointing an amicus curiae and hearing the appeal the same day without affording a reasonable time for preparation. Such conduct, it held, violated the accused’s right to effective representation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. On Evidentiary Value of Hostile Witnesses
Citing precedents like C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. and K.P. Tamilmaran v. State (2025), the Court held that testimony of hostile witnesses cannot be discarded entirely. Acceptable portions that withstand scrutiny may be relied upon. Here, Amit Bakshi’s testimony—that Munish remained unconscious and assailants were unidentified due to darkness—was corroborated by medical evidence and thus carried significant weight.
3. On Infirmities in the Dying Declaration
The Court emphasised the principles from Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) and Atbir v. Govt. of NCT Delhi (2010):
- A dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction only if it inspires full confidence.
- It must be voluntary, true, and made in a fit state of mind.
- Where suspicious circumstances exist, corroboration becomes mandatory.
Applying these principles, the Court listed grave infirmities:
- No identification or examination of the doctor who issued the fitness certificate.
- Lack of contemporaneous medical records.
- Absence of time of recording.
- No satisfaction recorded by the officer.
- Contradictions with witness and medical testimony.
Together, these factors rendered the declaration unreliable
4. On Weapon Recovery
The Court held that without scientific corroboration linking the weapon to the deceased, mere recovery could not implicate the accused. Citing Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024), it reiterated that recovery without blood group matching is inconsequential
Judgment
The Supreme Court concluded that:
- The prosecution failed to establish the faithful recording and authenticity of the dying declaration.
- Such a doubtful piece of evidence cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
- Recovery of the knife, unsupported by forensic corroboration, had no probative value.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Tarun Sharma of charges under Section 302 IPC, directing his release.
Broader Legal Principles
Reliability of Dying Declarations
This judgment reaffirms that dying declarations, though admissible, are not infallible. Courts must scrutinise:
Fitness of the declarant: Medical certification and satisfaction of the recording officer are crucial.
Authenticity: Recording time, presence of witnesses, and corroboration with medical/ocular evidence.
Consistency: Whether the declaration aligns with other evidence or contains contradictions.
Role of the Court
Section 165 of the Evidence Act (now Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) empowers courts to actively seek truth. The trial court’s failure to summon the certifying doctor or medical records was a lapse in judicial duty.
Right to Fair Trial
The Supreme Court’s censure of the High Court underscores that expeditious justice cannot override fairness. Appointment of an amicus is not a mere formality; adequate time for preparation is indispensable, especially in cases involving life imprisonment.
Comparative Precedents
- Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002): Certification of fitness by a doctor is a rule of caution; what matters is the satisfaction of the recording officer.
- Atbir v. Govt. (NCT Delhi) (2010): Laid down principles when dying declarations can form the sole basis of conviction.
- Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam (2011): Courts must adjourn rather than proceed in the absence of counsel.
- Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (2019): Laid down guidelines on appointment of amicus in serious criminal cases.
- K.P. Tamilmaran v. State (2025): Clarified evidentiary value of hostile witnesses.
The present case harmonises these precedents, warning against blind reliance on suspicious dying declarations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana reaffirms a vital safeguard: a murder conviction cannot rest solely on a dying declaration riddled with infirmities. Courts must demand unimpeachable evidence, especially when liberty is at stake.
While dying declarations remain an important tool in securing justice, their use requires strict compliance with safeguards. Anything less risks miscarriages of justice. The case is thus a timely reminder that the pursuit of justice must never compromise on fairness, accuracy, or the fundamental rights of the accused.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams