Supreme Court Affirms Convictions in Head-Injury Death, Holds FIR by Deceased Admissible as Dying Declaration; Reduces Sentences

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard the appeal arising from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh’s order that reversed a trial court acquittal and convicted two accused for offences arising from an assault that later led to the death of the victim. The Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2013 challenged the High Court’s re-appreciation of evidence and its conclusion that the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the injured person could be treated as a statement under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.

The Court upheld the High Court’s conclusion that the prosecution proved culpable conduct leading to death and found no “palpable error or perversity” in the High Court’s reasonings, while exercising caution on sentence. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The law in India does not make the admissibility of a dying declaration dependent upon the person's having a consciousness of the approach of death. Even if the person did not apprehend that he would die, a statement made by him about the circumstances of his death would be admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.” The Bench recorded that it would not re-appreciate evidence afresh, noting that “we do not find any palpable error or perversity in the reasonings assigned by the High Court”.

Background The dispute arose from an incident on the night of 16 November 2000 at Village Palthin, Bilaspur district. The deceased, Prem Lal, lodged an FIR at the police station the next morning alleging that he was attacked in his courty ard by his brother Pyare Lal and two others, Sita Ram and Onkar, and that Sita Ram struck him on the forehead with a ‘darat’ (a sickle-like agricultural tool). The deceased initially survived, sought medical attention and was later hospitalized; he died nine days after the assault. Post-mortem findings recorded a fissured fracture of the skull and listed asphyxia as the cause of death.

The accused stood charged under Sections 451, 324, 504, 506 and, after death, Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court, after examining 11 prosecution witnesses and documents, acquitted all three accused. The State appealed to the High Court which reversed the acquittal: Sita Ram was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC) and sentenced to six years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine; Onkar was held guilty of offences under Sections 323 and 451 IPC and sentenced to one year RI with fine. The State’s appeal led to the present criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted the High Court’s evaluation that the FIR lodged by the deceased fell within Section 32 as a statement relating to the circumstances of the transaction resulting in his death; it refrained from re-assessing witness credibility in detail. The Court explained medico-legal connections between head injury and subsequent asphyxia, and rejected the contention that absence of an expectation of death rendered the FIR inadmissible, following established precedents that Section 32 does not require imminent expectation of death.

The Court disposed of the appeal by confirming guilt but moderating sentences on grounds of mitigation. Sita Ram’s sentence was reduced from six years to one year RI while maintaining the fine of Rs.5,000 (default additional six months); he was directed to surrender within eight weeks if not already serving sentence. Onkar’s sentence was reduced to the period already undergone; he was directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 or face six months’ RI in default. The appeal stood disposed of in these terms.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.228/2013 (2025 INSC 359) Case Title: Sita Ram & Anr. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikrant Singh (for appellant No.1), Ms. Sangeeta Kumar (for appellant No.2) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhishek Gautam (for State of Himachal Pradesh)