LexSHANKAR versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 298 : 2026 INSC 315 Shankar v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 1735 of 2026) 02 April 2026 [Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for killing his wife by setting her on fire, ought to be upheld. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying declaration – When can be relied upon – Appellant beat up his wife, poured kerosene over her and killed her by setting her on fire – Concurrent conviction u/s.302, IPC relying upon on the dying declaration of the deceased stating that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene on her and set her on fire – Challenge to: Held: Dying declarations are exceptions to the rule of hearsay and, if a Court finds them consistent, believable and free of tutoring, it can convict the person named therein – In the present case, the medical evidence is consistent with the dying declaration – Appeal dismissed – Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – s.26 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 342. [Paras 9, 12] Concurrent findings of conviction – Scope of interference, restricted: Held: It would only be permissible for this Court to interfere if the Courts below had committed manifest errors in law, misdirected itself in appreciating evidence, or completely missed out crucial pieces of evidence that would have bearing on the overall outcome of the case. [Para 7, 13] Crimes Against Women – Dowry, domestic violence, etc. – Long-drawn legislative efforts for eradication of however, not to much yield – Reasons therefor. [Paras 14-18] * Author [2026] 4 S.C.R. 299 Shankar v. State of Rajasthan Case Law Cited Manjunath v. State of Karnataka [2023] 14 SCR 727 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421; Shayara Bano v. Union of India [2017] 9 SCR 797 : (2017) 9 SCC 1; Joseph Shine v. Union of India [2018] 11 SCR 765 : (2018) 2 SCC 189; Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya [2020] 3 SCR 833 : (2020) 7 SCC 469; Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [2020] 10 SCR 135 : (2020) 9 SCC 1; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2014] 8 SCR 128 : (2014) 8 SCC 273; Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora [2016] 9 SCR 515 : (2016) 10 SCC 165; Shakti Vahini v. Union of India [2018] 3 SCR 770 : (2018) 7 SCC 192; Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M [2018] 4 SCR 955 : (2018) 16 SCC 368 – referred to. List of Acts Evidence Act, 1872; Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. List of Keywords Dying declaration; Wife killed by setting her on fire; Kerosene poured; Concurrent findings of conviction; Concurrent conviction; Medical evidence consistent with dying declaration; Burning a wife; Dowry; Domestic violence. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1735 of 2026 From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2019 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCRA No. 65 of 2015. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Ms. Kavita Vadia, Sr. Adv., Tabrez Ahmad, Syed Mehdi Imam, Varun Verma, Chavi Jain, S. U. Abbas. Advs. for the Respondent(s): Divynk Panwar, Ms. Pallavi Garg, Ms. Sanjana Sharma, Prajjwal Singh, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal. 300 [2026] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Sanjay Karol, J. Leave granted. 2. Shankar, the appellant was accused of having beaten up, poured kerosene over his wife – Sugna Bai, and killed her by setting her on fire. The Trial Court, Sessions Judge, Bundi, in Sessions Case No.249/2012 in terms of judgment dated 10.12.2014 sentenced him to life imprisonment under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342, Indian Penal Code 18601. Fines of Rs.1000/- each for both the offences was also imposed, and simple imprisonment for one month was indicated to be suffered by him in the event of default. Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2015 was dismissed by the learned Division Bench by judgment dated 20.08.2019. Shankar, now is before this Court, asking us to overturn his concurrent conviction. 3. The facts, leading up to the position as indicated above was that the deceased had married the appellant about a month prior to her death on 19.10.2012 and within approximately 20 days the relationship had
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.