LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus CHAMAN LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 821 : 2026 INSC 57 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal (Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2018) 15 January 2026 [B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the credibility of the dying declaration of the wife, and the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondent-husband by extending to him the benefit of doubt. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.32 – Dying declaration – Evidentiary value – Prosecution case that owing to marital discord between the parties, the respondent-husband allegedly poured kerosene on his wife at their residence and set her on fire – Some villagers rushed to her rescue and the respondent also attempted to extinguish the fire – Wife was rushed to the hospital where she succumbed to her burn injuries, after a month – Tehsildar had recorded the dying declaration of the wife – Trial court convicted the respondent for the offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life – High Court acquitted the respondent by extending to him the benefit of doubt – Correctness: Held: Dying declaration inspires full confidence – Declaration clearly and unequivocally attributes the act of pouring kerosene oil and igniting the fire to the respondent – It bears the thumb impression of the deceased and was recorded in the presence of senior officers – No material on record suggestive of tutoring, coercion or manipulation – In any event, the law does not prescribe any rigid form for recording a dying declaration – So long as the Court is satisfied that the declaration is voluntary, truthful and reliable, hyper-technical objections cannot form the basis for its rejection – Dying declaration itself refers to persistent matrimonial discord and ill-treatment thereby furnishing a plausible background * Author 822 [2026] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports for the commission of the offence – Upon an overall appraisal of the evidence, the dying declaration of the deceased, voluntary, truthful and reliable – It was recorded by a competent authority at a time when the deceased was conscious, oriented and capable of making a statement – Minor discrepancies highlighted by the High Court do not create any dent in the credibility of the dying declaration – Plea of self-immolation on behalf of the respondent does not inspire the confidence – Thus, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent committed the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC – Trial court correctly relied upon the dying declaration and the surrounding circumstances to record the conviction of the respondent – High Court erred in discarding this crucial piece of evidence on speculative and hyper-technical grounds and in placing undue reliance on the testimonies of hostile and defence witnesses – It cannot be said that a dying declaration must invariably be discarded in the absence of corroboration – Each case must necessarily turn on its own facts – High Court erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court by re-appreciating the evidence in a manner contrary to the settled principles governing appellate interference – Impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court set aside – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court restored. [Paras 17-27] Case Law Cited State of Haryana v. Ram Singh [2002] 1 SCR 208 : (2002) 2 SCC 426; Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 487; Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2016] 1 SCR 913 : AIR 2016 SC 1160 : (2016) 4 SCC 357; Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another Etc. [2022] 3 SCR 1046 : (2022) 3 SCC 471; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore [2023] 5 SCR 601 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 537; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg Etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2801; Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay [1958] 1 SCR 552 : AIR 1958 SC 22; Smt. Paniben v. State of Gujarat [1992] 2 SCR 197 : 1992 SCC OnLine SC 355 : AIR 1992 SC 1817; Laxman v. State of Maharashtra [2002] Supp. 1 SCR 697 : (2002) 6 SCC 710; State of U.P. v. Veerpal [2022] 1 SCR 1163 : (2022) 4 SCC 741; Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2012] 5 SCR 37 : (2012) 4 SCC 327; Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2025] 8 SCR 690 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1669; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bogam Chandraiah and Another (1986) 3 SCC 637; Dasin Bai @ Shanti Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh [2015] [2026] 1 S.C.R. 823 State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.