ABHISHEK SHARMA versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 18-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 890 : 2023 INSC 924
890
CASE DETAILS
ABHISHEK SHARMA
v.
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal No. 1473 of 2011)
OCTOBER 18, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The victim-deceased gave four dying 
declarations. High Court confi rmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence 
of life imprisonment u/s. 302 IPC as awarded by the trial Court.
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Multiple dying 
declarations – Prosecution case that appellant and victim had a quarrel, 
as the victim had aff ection for their boss and not for appellant – 
Appellant took victim to an open site near a school and in the midst of 
an argument, set her on fi re – Victim died – Victim had given four dying 
declarations – Appellant convicted by the Courts below – Propriety:
Held: The DD-I shows that it was recorded in the third person, as 
PW-16-ASI had reported incident – The statement before the court is that 
the operator came into ‘DO room’ and reported that PW-16 had found a 
girl burning, and it is to him that she stated that appellant, had done this to 
her – Had the statement of the deceased, as told to PW-16, been before the 
court as it is, the same could have been considered a dying declaration within 
the meaning of s.32 IEA – DD-II is, in fact, an entry in the Medico-Legal 
Inquiry Register made by PW-8-doctor – It is true that a dying declaration 
is not to be discarded on account of brevity, but it is equally true that it 
must contain the proximate cause of the deceased’s condition and the reason 
therefor – Here, it states the presence of burn injuries and says that the 
same was caused by appellant, which, arguably, is insuffi  cient – There is 
no particular identifi cation of the convict-appellant, nor is there a mention 
of the means through which the injuries were infl icted (petrol) – DD-III 
891
was made to PW-17-SI – Despite this being the third statement given, no 
attempt was made to have the same made before a doctor or magistrate, 
which, as a rule of prudence, lends support to the prosecution – It refl ects 
from the record that at the time when the third statement was recorded, the 
deceased had been administered treatment for her injuries – However, it 
has not come forth as to the nature of treatment and what kind of medicines 
were given to her – In the absence of a positive statement by the medical 
team responsible for her treatment, it cannot be stated, with certainty, that 
the medicines administered had no eff ect of impairing the mental fi tness 
of the deceased – Therefore, doubts surrounds DD-III – DD- IV is the 
statement of the deceased to her mother – When making the declaration, 
there is nothing on record to indicate a) further deterioration in condition 
and b) non-availability of a third party, such as a doctor before whom such 
a statement could be recorded – The lack of independent corroboration, 
particularly when the person making the statement is the mother of the 
deceased, the court cannot rule out, to a positive degree, the role played by 
a sense of loss and possibly even anger, to rely on such statement – Besides 
the alleged dying declarations, there is no evidence to point to the guilt of 
the convict-appellant – On perusal of the records, there are inconsistencies 
throughout – There are gaps unexplained in the prosecution case. [Paras 
15, 16, 17, 19, 26]
Dying Declaration – Multiple dying declarations – The Court to 
consider the following principles, when dealing with a case involving 
multiple dying declarations:
Held: 1. The primary requirement for all dying declarations is that 
they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in 
a fi t state of mind; 2. All dying declarations should be consistent – In other 
words, inconsistencies between such statements should be ‘material’ for its 
credibility to be shaken; 3. When inconsistencies are found between various 
dying declarations, other evidence available on record may be considered 
for the purposes of corroboration of the contents of dying declarations; 4. 
The statement treated as a dying declaration must be interpreted in light of 
surrounding facts and circumstances; 5. Each declaration must be scrutinized 
on its own merits – The court has to examine upon which of the statements 
reliance can be placed in order for the case to proceed further; 6. When there 
ABHISHEK SHARMA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.