The Supreme Court of India has acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, holding that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a “doubtful” dying declaration that suffers from numerous “crucial infirmities and loopholes.” A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in the case of Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana, set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, highlighting significant lapses in the prosecution’s case, particularly concerning the recording of the victim’s statement.
The Court also took serious exception to the manner in which the High Court had handled the appeal, stating that appointing an amicus curiae and proceeding to hear the matter on the very same day “renders the safeguard of effective legal representation to an empty formality and undermines the very essence of the right to fair trial.”
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on March 31, 2012, when Munish Kumar and his brother Amit Bakshi (PW-1) were allegedly intercepted and attacked. The prosecution claimed that Tarun Sharma inflicted a fatal knife blow to Munish Kumar’s stomach. An FIR was registered based on a statement purportedly given by Munish Kumar on April 1, 2012, which was treated as a dying declaration following his death on April 14, 2012.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, convicted Tarun Sharma for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, primarily relying on the dying declaration (Exh. P-34). However, the trial court acquitted the three other co-accused, Sandeep Sharma, Balwinder Singh, and Deepak Bhardwaj. The conviction was later upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
High Court’s Procedural Approach Criticized
Before delving into the merits, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s procedure. The appeal was listed for a miscellaneous application, but the High Court insisted on hearing the main appeal on the same day. As the appellant’s counsel was unavailable, the court appointed an amicus curiae and concluded the hearing without affording the new counsel adequate time to prepare.
The Supreme Court observed, “The principles of fair trial and effective representation are not procedural gimmicks but foundational guarantees of our criminal justice system, which cannot be compromised or breached.” Citing its precedent in Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the bench emphasized that counsel in serious criminal cases must be given reasonable time to prepare.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of Evidence
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on the dying declaration (Exh. P-34), which it concluded was unreliable due to several grave infirmities.
1. Doubts Over Victim’s Fitness to Give Statement: The Court noted a “serious lapse” by the prosecution in failing to identify or examine the doctor who had purportedly issued the fitness certificate (Exh. P-33). This failure, the Court stated, “creates a grave doubt about the authenticity of the fitness certificate.” Furthermore, the Court pointed out that Sub-Inspector Somnath (PW-17), who recorded the statement, failed to record his own satisfaction regarding the victim’s fitness, an indispensable requirement. The Court held, “The absence of satisfaction recorded by the Sub-Inspector, Somnath (PW-17), regarding the fitness of the injured Munish Kumar to make a statement, casts a serious doubt on the reliability of the statement/dying declaration (Exh. P-34).”
2. Testimony of Hostile Witness Ignored: The deceased’s own brother, Amit Bakshi (PW-1), who was an eyewitness, was declared hostile by the prosecution. He testified that Munish Kumar “remained unconscious till his death” and “was not in a position to speak.” He also stated that due to darkness, they “could not identify the unknown persons who caused injuries.” The Supreme Court found that this testimony was never dislodged in cross-examination and directly contradicted the prosecution’s claim that Munish Kumar gave a statement. Applying the principle that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in its entirety, the Court found the reliable parts of PW-1’s testimony fatally undermined the dying declaration.
3. Inconsistencies and Omissions in the Declaration: The Court highlighted several other issues with the declaration. It did not mention the time it was recorded, which the Court termed a “serious lapse” essential for correlating the statement with the victim’s medical condition. The Court also noted that the declaration was not fully accepted even by the prosecution and the trial court, as one of the main assailants named in it, Sanjay, was never charge-sheeted, and another, Bittoo, was acquitted.
4. Inconsequential Weapon Recovery: The Court deemed the recovery of a knife at the appellant’s instance as “inconsequential.” It pointed out that the forensic report did not indicate any blood group on the weapon, and no serological report was produced to match the blood with that of the deceased. The judgment stated, “…mere recovery of a weapon, even if stained by the same blood group as that of the deceased cannot by itself establish the guilt of an accused, particularly where the prosecution’s primary evidence…suffers from serious infirmities.”
The Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court found the prosecution’s case to have “miserably failed.” The Court held, “The cumulative effect of these crucial infirmities and loopholes…creates a grave doubt on the veracity of the statement/dying declaration (Exh. P-34). These grave doubts not only undermine the authenticity of the statement/dying declaration (Exh. P-34) but also render the same unreliable so as to form the sole basis for sustaining the prosecution case.”
Resultantly, the Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court and acquitted Tarun Sharma of all charges. He was ordered to be released from prison forthwith.
