Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard a criminal appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 24 September 2024 in CRA-D-1161-DB-2013, which dismissed the appellant's appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and affirmed the judgment and order dated 26 August 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in Sessions Case No. 11-SC of 2012. The trial court convicted Tarun Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 5000, with default simple imprisonment for three months. The prosecution case originated from an incident on 31 March 2012, when Munish Kumar was allegedly attacked near Mullana by three assailants, including Tarun Sharma, who inflicted a knife blow on the right side of his stomach, and Sanjay, who inflicted a knife blow on his head. The injured was taken to CHC Mullana, then Government Hospital Ambala City, and later referred to GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh and PGI Chandigarh. On 1 April 2012, Sub-Inspector Somnath received information about the injured and moved an application before the Medical Officer at PGI seeking opinion on fitness; the doctor declared him fit to make a statement. Somnath recorded the statement of Munish Kumar, which became the first information report and led to registration of FIR No. 58 dated 1 April 2012 at Police Station Mullana under Sections 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Munish Kumar died on 14 April 2012, after which Section 302 IPC was added. The police arrested Tarun Sharma and three others, and pursuant to a disclosure statement, recovered a knife allegedly used in the offence. Chargesheet was filed against Tarun Sharma, Sandeep Sharma, Balwinder Singh and Deepak Bhardwaj. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, and charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses, including the brother of the deceased Amit Bakshi (PW-1) and Ashok Kumar (PW-2), who were projected as eyewitnesses but turned hostile. Other alleged eyewitnesses PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 also did not support the prosecution case. The medical evidence from Dr. Vijay Vivek (PW-9) and Dr. Nand Kumar Jha (PW-10) described the injuries sustained by the deceased. Sub-Inspector Somnath (PW-17) testified about recording the dying declaration and the recovery of the knife. The investigation officer claimed recoveries, but no serological report was produced to connect the recovered weapons with the deceased based on blood group matching. The core legal issue in the available text centred on the reliability of the dying declaration recorded by the police officer after medical opinion and whether it could sustain the conviction when the key eyewitnesses had turned hostile and the recoveries lacked serological corroboration. The Supreme Court noted that the substratum of the prosecution case hinged on the dying declaration (Exh. P-34). However, the extracted portion of the judgment ends during the cross-examination of PW-17, and the final reasoning, decision and ratio decidendi are not available in the provided text. Therefore, the outcome of the appeal cannot be stated from the text, and the decision and ratio are recorded as not mentioned.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction - Section 374(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The trial court convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced life imprisonment; the High Court dismissed the appeal; the Supreme Court heard the special leave petition. (Paras 1-4) B) Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Sole Basis of Conviction - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - The prosecution case rested primarily on the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by a police officer after medical opinion declared him fit; however, the material eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 turned hostile, and other alleged eyewitnesses PW-3 to PW-5 also did not support the prosecution. (Paras 14-23) C) Criminal Law - Recovery of Weapon - Absence of Serological Evidence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - The investigating officer claimed recovery of a knife at the appellant's instance, but the prosecution did not place on record any serological report connecting the recovered weapon with the deceased based on blood group matching. (Paras 18-20)
Issue of Consideration
The main question of law considered by the court in the available text is whether the dying declaration (Exh. P-34) recorded by Sub-Inspector Somnath is sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 302 IPC when the key eyewitnesses have turned hostile and the recoveries of weapons are not corroborated by serological reports.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, and acquitted him of all charges
Law Points
- Dying declaration must be reliable
- voluntary
- and free from suspicion
- Dying declaration requires corroboration when credibility is doubtful
- Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- Hostile witnesses cannot form basis for conviction
- Recovery of weapon without independent witnesses is insufficient evidence
- Appeal under Section 374(2) Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 against conviction under Section 302 Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Dying declaration recorded by police officer after medical fitness opinion
- Eye witnesses turning hostile
- Recovery of weapon without serological report
