SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 3 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 11-03-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 3 S.C.R. 556 : 2026 INSC 223
Sanjay Kumar Sharma 
v. 
State of Bihar & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2026)
11 March 2026
[Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in acquitting 
the accused despite the alleged dying declarations, motive and 
testimony of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to establish 
the prosecution case.
Headnotes†
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying declaration – Evidentiary 
value – Shanty in which the old couple were residing gutted 
in a fire, killing the old man immediately and his wife died two 
days later in a hospital – Prosecution case that the younger 
son and daughter-in-law of the couple, due to previous land 
disputes, torched the hut with the intention to murder the 
parents – Trial court convicted the accused, however, the 
High Court acquitted him – Correctness: 
Held: In the totality of the circumstances as coming out from 
the evidence, the High Court perfectly correct in acquitting the 
accused – Unable to find that the dying declarations alleged to 
have been made to the witnesses are credible or even probable, 
especially considering the fact that the deceased is alleged to have 
made the statement immediately after sustaining grievous burn 
injuries – Investigation was a sham and was premeditated, throwing 
to the winds every tenet of criminal jurisprudence informed by due 
procedure – Prosecution, was a farce, parading witnesses whose 
testimonies fell flat – Investigation and prosecution premised on 
the motive alleged and nothing more – None of the incriminating 
circumstances including that of the motive, the complaints filed by 
the deceased against the accused, the various dying declarations 
* Author
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 
557
Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors.
and the medical evidence were put to the accused – Investigation 
carried out grossly deficient – Scene mahazar not drawn up, no 
forensic examination carried out at the scene of crime and no 
independent witnesses arrayed – Causation of fire not investigated, 
the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime scene not 
established – Delay in registration of FIR despite the information 
having been received at the police station earlier, and police 
personnel including the I.O having visited the scene of occurrence 
where number of villagers were present was a serious lapse – 
Delay caused and the manner in which the FIS recorded throws 
suspicion on the very conduct of the I.O – Dying declarations should 
have been recorded with more caution and when taken inside the 
hospital it should have ideally been recorded in the presence of 
a Doctor, whose certification also ought to have been obtained – 
Incriminating circumstances that come out in a trial are to be put to 
the accused in its entirety, solemn duty enjoined both on the Court 
and the Prosecutor equally, failing which the entire prosecution 
may fail for that sole reason – There are lapses in investigation, 
which could have been avoided. [Paras 26, 28, 31-33]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying declaration – Evidentiary 
value – Important species of evidence – Explanation:
Held: Dying declaration is an important species of evidence 
capable of proving the crime proper and identifying the accused, 
an exception to hearsay having been provided by s.32 – Dying 
declaration, for reliance should inspire confidence in the Court as to 
its credibility – Court should be satisfied it is made by the deceased 
without any prompting or tutoring or coercion or is a mere figment 
of imagination, then conviction can be based solely on the dying 
declaration and there is no requirement of any corroboration – It 
can be reduced to writing or can be oral, as testified by reliable 
witnesses – It can be one or numerous and if more than one; 
exculpatory and inculpatory, it is for the Court to find out which 
is believable – It can be a lengthy one or a short one, so far as 
the crime is spoken of and identification of the perpetrator comes 
through – It can be a single narrative or in a question and answer 
form – It can either have a history of the rancour between the 
perpetrator and the victim or can be merely the brief statement of 
the incident – Capacity of the injured to make the statement, both 
physical and mental, need not be necessarily certified by a doctor 
558
[2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and would rest again on the satisfaction of the Court on an a

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