Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted Solely on Doubtful Dying Declaration; Rebukes High Court for Denying Adequate Defence Opportunity

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by special leave against the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s dismissal of a criminal appeal challenging a conviction and life sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC. The appeal arose from the trial Court’s conviction of Tarun Sharma for the death of Munish Kumar and raised issues about the reliability of a dying declaration, procedural lapses in investigation and trial, and the fairness of the High Court’s conduct in appointing and not affording time to an amicus curiae.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial Court, and acquitted the appellant, directing his immediate release if not required in any other case. The Court found the prosecution case to rest “purely on the statement/dying declaration” (Exh. P-34) and identified multiple, material infirmities in its recording and proof. The Court also censured the High Court’s decision to proceed to hear the appeal on the same day an amicus was appointed without adequate time to prepare, emphasising that “the right to be represented by a lawyer must not be an empty formality.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the serious lapses surrounding the recording of the statement/dying declaration (Exh. P-34), coupled with the material contradictions between its contents and the ocular testimony as well as the inconsequential recovery of the knife which stands discredited for want of scientific corroboration, the case of the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complicity of the accused-appellant for the commission of the crime.”

Background The prosecution alleged that on 31 March 2012 Munish Kumar sustained stab injuries after his car was intercepted; he was treated at multiple hospitals and subsequently died on 14 April 2012. A statement recorded by Sub-Inspector Somnath (Exh. P-34) at PGI Chandigarh was treated as the first information and later formed the core evidence against Tarun Sharma. Several eye-witnesses, including Amit Bakshi (brother of the deceased) and Ashok Kumar, turned hostile. The police relied also on a disclosure by the accused (Exh. P-24) leading to recovery of a knife; the FSL report, however, did not establish any serological link between the weapon and the deceased.

The trial Court accepted the dying declaration and the recovery, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment; the High Court affirmed that conviction. On appeal the Supreme Court examined both procedural fairness and the evidentiary foundation. The Court noted that the recording officer did not record his own satisfaction as to the declarant’s fitness to speak, the fitness certificate (Exh. P-33) did not identify or produce the certifying doctor, and no contemporaneous bed-head tickets or treatment records from GMCH or PGI were produced. Medical witnesses confirmed that Munish Kumar was largely unconscious and not in a position to speak; Amit Bakshi had stated the assailants could not be identified in the dark and that the accused in court had not injured his brother. The Court held these facts created “grave doubt on the veracity of the statement/dying declaration” and that mere recovery of the knife without scientific corroboration was inconsequential.

Relying on precedent about the proper appointment and effective role of amicus curiae and the need for fair opportunity to be heard, the Court cautioned lower courts that appointment of amicus must not be a formality and adequate time must be granted. Applying legal principles on hostile witnesses and dying declarations, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant; pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 3810 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3965 of 2025) Case Title: Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Ajay Tewari, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri Lokesh Sinhal, Senior Advocate-on-Record / Sr. AAG (State of Haryana)