Date of the Judgment: March 05, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 324
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a dying declaration alone be the basis for conviction in a murder case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Suresh @ Hanumant vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi). The court upheld the conviction of the accused based on the dying declaration of the deceased, emphasizing its reliability and consistency. This judgment clarifies the evidentiary value of dying declarations in criminal proceedings. The bench comprised Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Nagender Yadav, who was the husband of PW-1 Bindu. Accused no.1, Dinesh Kumar @ Khali, resided in the same locality as the deceased and his wife. The other two accused, Deepak Kumar @ Chintu and Suresh @ Hanumant, were associates of accused no.1.

In Diwali of 2010, accused no.1 had threatened the deceased. The key incident occurred on the night of May 15th and 16th, 2012. PW-1, her minor son, and the deceased were sleeping in their house when PW-1 heard a sound like a cracker around 12:30 am on May 16th, 2012. She found her husband bleeding from his abdomen. The deceased disclosed to her that accused no.1 had shot him, with accused nos. 2 and 3 also present. The deceased was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and then to RML Hospital, where he was declared dead.

Timeline

Date Event
Diwali, 2010 Accused no.1 threatens the deceased at his home.
May 15-16, 2012 (intervening night) The deceased, his wife (PW-1), and their son are sleeping at home.
May 16, 2012, 12:30 AM PW-1 hears a sound like a cracker and finds her husband injured.
May 16, 2012, Shortly After The deceased discloses that accused no.1 shot him, with accused nos. 2 and 3 present.
May 16, 2012, Early Morning The deceased is taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.
May 16, 2012, Early Morning The deceased is shifted to RML Hospital.
May 16, 2012, Shortly After The deceased is declared dead.

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused no.1 was additionally convicted under Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court confirmed the convictions and sentences.

Legal Framework

The relevant legal provisions in this case include:

  • Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
  • Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  • Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section pertains to the possession of prohibited arms.
  • Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section relates to the use of arms.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that,

See also  Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Financial Fraud Case: Centrum Financial Services vs. State of NCT of Delhi (28 January 2022)

*When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.*

Arguments

The appellants argued that the presence of a large iron gate at the deceased’s house made it impossible for the accused to enter. They also contended that it was dark at the time of the incident, making it unlikely that the deceased could identify his assailants. Additionally, they pointed out that the deceased was conscious and able to walk when taken to the hospital, yet no dying declaration was recorded by the doctor. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report also could not confirm that the bullet recovered from the deceased’s body was fired from the weapon recovered from accused no.1.

The respondent argued that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the dying declaration was consistent and reliable. They supported the impugned judgments based on this evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the dying declaration of the deceased is reliable and sufficient for conviction?
  2. Whether Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was correctly applied to the facts of the case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue How the Court Dealt with It
Reliability of Dying Declaration The Court found the dying declaration to be reliable based on the consistent testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, who were close relatives of the deceased. The court noted that their version of the dying declaration was not shaken during cross-examination.
Application of Section 34 IPC The Court held that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was correctly applied, as the conduct of the accused persons reflected a common intention. The presence of accused nos. 2 and 3 with accused no. 1 at the time of the shooting indicated a shared intention.

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite other cases or legal provisions as authorities. The court primarily relied on the factual evidence presented by the witnesses.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The court found the dying declaration made by the deceased to be reliable and credible.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) was primarily influenced by the reliability and consistency of the dying declaration provided by the deceased. The court emphasized the natural and unwavering testimony of PW-1 (Bindu, the deceased’s wife) and PW-2 (Ram Singh Yadav, the deceased’s brother), who both recounted the deceased’s statement identifying the accused as his assailants. The absence of significant contradictions or omissions in their cross-examination, coupled with their close relationship to the deceased, bolstered the credibility of their accounts.

Additionally, the court considered the presence and actions of the accused, which indicated a common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite arguments regarding visibility and the inconclusive FSL report, the court found that the deceased’s familiarity with the accused and the overall circumstances supported the conviction.

See also  Supreme Court sets aside High Court's quashing of FIR in property fraud case: Dilbag Rai vs. State of Haryana (2018) INSC 1001 (3 December 2018)

Key Takeaways

  • A dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable and credible.
  • The consistency and credibility of witnesses presenting the dying declaration are crucial.
  • Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be applied if the conduct of the accused reflects a common intention.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suresh @ Hanumant vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) reinforces the importance of dying declarations in criminal proceedings. The court’s emphasis on the reliability and consistency of the evidence underscores the evidentiary value of such declarations when presented by credible witnesses.

Source: Suresh @ Hanumant vs. State