LexTARUN SHARMA versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 1273 : 2025 INSC 1139 Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 3810 of 2025) 01 September 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Conviction of the appellant u/s.302, IPC based on the statement/ dying declaration (Exh. P-34) of the deceased, if ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Evidence – Dying declaration – When cannot be relied upon – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – FIR u/ss.323, 324, 506 r/w 34, IPC was registered on the basis of injured victim’s statement (Exh.P 34) – Victim died, s.302 was added to the case – Appellant along with co-accused persons was arrested – Trial court acquitted the co-accused persons however, the appellant was convicted u/s.302 – Conviction affirmed by High Court – Interference with: Held: 1.1 Prosecution could neither prove the faithful recording of the statement/dying declaration nor they could prove it to be an unimpeachable document – Such a doubtful piece of evidence cannot be made the foundation of conviction of the appellant. [Para 64] 1.2 There are material infirmities in the case of prosecution – It was categorically stated by PW-1 (brother of the deceased) and corroborated by the Doctors (PW-9 and PW-10) who treated the deceased, that the deceased remained unconscious almost fully from the time of the assault on until his death, and was never in a condition to speak – Hence the fitness certificate becomes doubtful. [Paras 63] 1.3 Prosecution failed to identify or examine the doctor who had issued the fitness certificate, which creates grave doubt about the * Author 1274 [2025] 9 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports authenticity of the fitness certificate – Furthermore, non-examination of the said doctor, deprived the defence an opportunity to discredit the fitness certificate. [Paras 63] 1.4 No contemporaneous medical record relating to the treatment of the deceased at the hospital was produced nor proved during trial, leaving the Court without corroborative material to assess the fitness of the injured to make a statement. [Para 63] 1.5 The statement/dying declaration itself suffers from serious infirmities as it bears no time of recording, and the recording officer, SI (PW-17), failed to record his own satisfaction that the injured was fit to make such statement. [Para 63] 1.6 Even the prosecution and trial Court did not fully accept the version set out in the statement/dying declaration, inasmuch as one of the named assailants, was not charge sheeted, and another, (accused No. 3), was acquitted by the trial Court. [Para 63] 1.7 PW-1, who was present with the deceased at the time of the incident, categorically deposed that the accused present in Court had not caused any injuries to the deceased and further stated that the assailants could not be identified due to darkness, thereby significantly contradicting the version set out in the statement/dying declaration. [Para 63] 1.8 Prosecution miserably failed to establish the complicity of the appellant for the commission of the crime – There are serious lapses surrounding the recording of the statement/dying declaration coupled with the material contradictions between its contents and the ocular testimony as well as the inconsequential recovery of the knife (purportedly used for causing injuries to the deceased) which is discredited for want of scientific corroboration – Impugned judgments set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Para 66] Judicial Deprecation – Adjudication of criminal appeal – Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to fair trial – In the present case, High Court proceeded to take up the main appeal itself for hearing on merits when the matter was listed only for consideration of an application regarding renewal of the registration certificate of the Alto car seized during investigation – Since the counsel engaged by the appellant- accused was not available, the Court appointed an amicus [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1275 Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana. curiae and, without granting a reasonable opportunity to prepare the matter, it heard the appeal on merits and reserved judgment on the very same day: Held: Approach adopted by the High Court is short of standards of fairness and is particularly more disturbing and unjustified as the accused was sentenced to life imprisonment – Deprecated – The hearing in a criminal trial or appeal must be an effective hearing – This necessarily presupposes not only the presence of counsel bu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.