The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of three accused persons in a murder case observing that when the dying declaration made by the deceased is proved, the lacuna in other evidence is insignificant.

The three appellants, who approached the Apex Court, had been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The first accused was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 25(1B)(a) and 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “Once the dying declaration made by the deceased is proved, the fact that the ballistic expert could not give a definite opinion on the question of whether the cartridge recovered from the body of the deceased was fired by the revolver recovered at the instance of the accused no.1, is not relevant at all. Once it is held that the dying declarations are duly proved, this lacuna is insignificant.”

Advocate Bipin Kumar Jha represented the Appellants while Advocate K. Parameshwaran represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased Nagender Yadav was the husband of the first witness. The first Accused used to stay in the same locality as the first witness and the deceased. All three accused were known to the first witness and her deceased husband. During the festival of Diwali, in the year 2010, the first accused broke a beer bottle on the door of the house of the deceased and left the house after threatening the deceased.

On the intervening night of 15th-16th May 2012, the first witness-wife heard a loud scream and saw that blood was oozing out of the abdomen of the deceased. Upon being asked, the deceased disclosed that the first accused had shot him in the presence of the other two accused persons.The deceased was taken to the Hospital but was declared dead. The Trial Court and the High Court accepted the prosecution's case of dying declaration and convicted the accused persons.

Reasoning

On a scrutiny of the cross-examination of the first witness, the Bench noted that there was no contradiction or omission brought on record regarding the version she narrated. No suggestion was given to the witness that the deceased was not in a position to speak. She denied the correctness of the suggestion that her deceased husband suspected that she was having illicit relations with PW-10. She identified the accused persons who were known to her in the Court. Hence, her evidence was held to be worthy of acceptance. The Bench also stated that neither the first nor the second witness had stated that any dying declaration was made by the deceased to PW-10.

The Bench further stated, “Thus, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 on the dying declaration made by the deceased is consistent and very reliable. Their version of the dying declaration has not been shaken in the cross-examination. As both the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, we have closely scrutinised their testimony.”

“As the evidence of the other two witnesses is worthy of acceptance, the prosecution’s case cannot be disbelieved on the ground that PW-10 did not support the prosecution”, it added.

Coming to the aspect of the recovery of the weapon of assault at the instance of the first accused, the ballistic expert stated that no opinion could be given whether the bullet marked which was found in the body of the deceased had been fired through the country-made pistol. The Bench said, “Once it is held that the dying declarations are duly proved, this lacuna is insignificant.” It was further noticed that the accused were known to the deceased for quite some time, the incident happened at the gate of the house of the deceased ,and there was a street light nearby. “Looking at the evidence on record, Section 34 of IPC has been correctly applied to the facts of the case. From the conduct of the accused persons reflected from the evidence on record, common intention on their part was duly proved”, it further held.

Thus, finding no error with the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, the Bench dismissed the appeals while granting one month to the accused to surrender for undergoing their remaining sentence. “We make it clear that as and when the appellants-accused become eligible for consideration of grant of permanent remission, their cases shall be considered by the respondent government as expeditiously as possible”, the Bench concluded.

Cause Title: Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 324)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Bipin Kumar Jha, Komal Jha, Jamshed Bey, Mudit Talesara, Samarth Talesara, AOR Ajay Kumar Talesara, AOR Atishi Dipankar

Respondent: Advocate K. Parameshwaran, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Aman Shukla, Sridhar Potaraju, Seema Bangani, S.K. Singhania, Raman Yadav

Click here to read/download Judgment









Justice Abhay S.OkaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.