Life Term Convictions Under S.302 IPC Upheld as Dying Declarations Held Reliable; Ballistics Lacuna Deemed Insignificant

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard appeals against convictions in which three accused were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and one accused faced additional conviction under the Arms Act. The appeals challenged the trial court’s reliance on dying declarations and the prosecution’s ballistic evidence.

The Court upheld the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. It concluded that the dying declarations made by the deceased before PW-1 (his wife) and PW-2 (his brother) were reliable and proved the assailants’ involvement, and that deficiencies in ballistic opinion did not undermine the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that the accused were "known to the deceased" and that their joint conduct established common intention. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Once the dying declaration made by the deceased is proved, the fact that the ballistic expert could not give a definite opinion on the question of whether the cartridge recovered from the body of the deceased was fired by the revolver recovered at the instance of the accused no.1, is not relevant at all. Once it is held that the dying declarations are duly proved, this lacuna is insignificant.” The Court further recorded that "From the conduct of the accused persons reflected from the evidence on record, common intention on their part was duly proved." The appeals were dismissed, and the Court granted the convicts one month to surrender for undergoing the remaining sentence, while directing that their cases be considered for permanent remission "as expeditiously as possible" when eligible.

Background

The prosecution case arose from the late-night fatal shooting of Nagender Yadav on 15-16 May 2012. The deceased’s wife (PW-1) testified that she woke at about 12:30 a.m. to a sound, found her husband bleeding from the abdomen and was told by him that accused Dinesh (accused no.1) had shot him and that accused Deepak and Suresh were present. PW-2 corroborated that on the way to hospital the deceased identified accused Dinesh as his assailant and said the other two were present. The trial court convicted all three for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC; accused no.1 also faced conviction under Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. A Division Bench of the High Court confirmed conviction and sentence.

On appeal, defence counsel challenged the identification in poor light at the gate of a house with a large iron gate, the absence of a dying declaration recorded by treating doctors, and the FSL report which did not conclusively link the bullet retrieved from the body to the recovered country-made pistol. The prosecution relied primarily on the dying declarations of the deceased recorded before PW-1 and PW-2, the recovery of the weapon at the instance of accused no.1, and the witnesses’ testimony.

The Supreme Court closely scrutinised the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, found no material contradictions or omissions that defeated their accounts, observed that the accused were known to the deceased and that there was street-lighting in the vicinity, and accepted the dying declarations as reliable. The Court held that the lack of a conclusive ballistic nexus did not negate the proved dying declarations and that Section 34 was properly applied to the facts to establish common intention. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed. The Court permitted one month for surrender and directed expeditious consideration of remission when the appellants became eligible.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2685 OF 2023 (with CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1250 OF 2023 and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3685 OF 2023) / 2025 INSC 324 Case Title: Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]