Framing A Case On Public Perceptions & Personal Predilections Ends Up In A Mess: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of Son & Daughter-In-Law Accused Of Parricide

The Court held that serious investigative lapses, unreliable dying declarations, and failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances rendered the prosecution's case unsafe to sustain a conviction.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the elder son of the deceased couple, challenging the judgment of the Patna High Court, which had acquitted his brother and sister-in-law of charges of murdering their parents by setting their hut ablaze.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while stating that “the investigation carried out is grossly deficient”, further held that “the son and daughter-in-law were accused of parricide and were convicted by the trial court, later acquitted by the High Court, which acquittal is now affirmed by us”.

The Court further noted that "Overzealous investigation is as fatal to prosecution as are the lethargic and the tardy. Framing a case on public perceptions and personal predilections ends up in a mess, often putting to peril an innocent and always letting free the perpetrator.."

Background

The case arose from an incident when a thatched dwelling in a village in Bihar caught fire during the early hours of the morning. An elderly couple residing in the hut suffered severe burn injuries; the husband died at the scene while the wife succumbed to her injuries two days later at a hospital.

The prosecution alleged that the younger son of the couple and his wife had intentionally set the house on fire due to longstanding disputes relating to ancestral property.

The trial court accepted the prosecution's case and convicted the accused. However, the Patna High Court reversed the conviction, granting them the benefit of doubt and acquitting them. The elder son of the deceased then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the acquittal.

Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the High Court had ignored crucial evidence, including multiple dying declarations allegedly made by one of the victims. It was argued that the statements of witnesses and the medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case and should have resulted in affirmation of the trial court’s conviction.

On the other hand, counsel for the accused highlighted serious deficiencies in the investigation and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, submitting that the case was built primarily on motive and unreliable dying declarations.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court began by noting that when an appellate court examines a judgment of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused stands fortified. Therefore, interference with such an acquittal is warranted only when the conclusions drawn by the High Court are manifestly unreasonable or contrary to the evidence on record.

Since the prosecution’s case rested substantially on dying declarations allegedly made by the deceased wife, the Court first examined the legal principles governing the evidentiary value of such statements. Referring to several precedents, including Laxman v. State of Maharashtra and Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi, the Court reiterated that a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence and is free from suspicion, tutoring or coercion.

However, the Court emphasised that when circumstances surrounding the declaration raise doubts regarding its authenticity or reliability, courts must exercise extreme caution before relying upon it.

Examining the evidence in the present case, the Court found that the First Information Statement recorded from the injured victim lacked credibility. The statement was recorded after police had already reached the scene, and when numerous villagers and relatives were present at the hospital. The Court found it improbable that a grievously injured victim would narrate a detailed account of family disputes and alleged motive in such circumstances.

The Court also examined another purported dying declaration recorded by a Block Development Officer. It noted contradictions in the testimony regarding who actually recorded the statement and observed that the declaration was made in the presence of several relatives and villagers, raising the possibility of prompting or tutoring. Significantly, no medical certification was obtained regarding the physical or mental condition of the victim at the time of making the statement.

In addition to these written statements, the prosecution relied on oral dying declarations allegedly made to several villagers. The Court found serious inconsistencies in these accounts and observed that the witnesses who claimed to have heard the declarations were closely related or otherwise interested in the dispute. At the same time, the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses who had allegedly first raised the alarm when the fire broke out.

The Court further noted that the investigation suffered from multiple serious lapses. No scene mahazar was prepared, and no forensic examination was conducted to determine whether the fire was caused intentionally or resulted from an accidental gas cylinder explosion, which was the defence case. Crucial witnesses were not examined, and there was no reliable evidence establishing the presence of the accused at or near the scene of the incident.

The Court also found that the trial court had conducted an inadequate examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Several incriminating circumstances, including alleged motive and the various dying declarations, were not put to the accused, which resulted in prejudice to their defence.

Considering these deficiencies cumulatively, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances pointing conclusively to the guilt of the accused. Instead, the record indicated what the Court described as “a conscious effort to nail the accused” based largely on suspicion and perceived motive rather than credible evidence.

The Bench observed that the investigation appeared to have been conducted in a manner that ignored essential principles of criminal investigation and fair trial. It noted that the failure to examine independent witnesses, investigate the cause of the fire, and properly record crucial evidence severely undermined the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly granted the benefit of doubt to the accused.

Finding the investigation and prosecution fundamentally flawed and incapable of sustaining a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court affirmed the acquittal of the son and daughter-in-law accused of murdering their parents.

The appeal challenging the acquittal was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 223)

Click here to read/download Judgment