Evidentiary value of dying declaration: Supreme Court Judgment in Suresh Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2685 of 2023, adjudicated on the conviction and sentencing of three accused persons for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. The judgment, delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan on March 5, 2025, upheld the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, dismissing the appeals of the accused.

Facts of the Case

The case pertained to the murder of Nagender Yadav on the intervening night of May 15-16, 2012. The accused—Dinesh Kumar @ Khali (Accused No. 1), Deepak Kumar @ Chintu (Accused No. 2), and Suresh @ Hanumant (Accused No. 3)—were convicted based on eyewitness testimony, the dying declaration of the deceased, and forensic evidence. The incident occurred when the deceased was shot outside his house, allegedly by Accused No. 1, in the presence of the other two accused.

Key Legal Issues

1. Admissibility and Reliability of Dying Declaration
   • The prosecution relied on the dying declaration made by the deceased to his wife (PW-1) and his brother (PW-2), naming the three accused.
   • The defense challenged its reliability, arguing that there was insufficient lighting and that no official dying declaration was recorded at the hospital.
2. Application of Section 34 IPC (Common Intention)
   • The court had to determine whether the accused persons acted with common intention to commit the crime, making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
3. Forensic Evidence and Recovery of Weapon
   • A country-made pistol was recovered from Accused No. 1.
   • The forensic expert (PW-15) could not confirm whether the bullet recovered from the deceased’s body was fired from this weapon.

Court’s Findings

1. Dying Declaration as Strong Evidence
   • The court held that the dying declaration was consistent and credible, as both PW-1 and PW-2 confirmed that the deceased named the accused before succumbing to injuries.
   • The absence of an official dying declaration recorded at the hospital was not deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case.
2. Presence of Common Intention (Section 34 IPC)
   • The court found that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were present with Accused No. 1 at the time of the shooting, demonstrating shared intent.
   • The accused had previous altercations with the deceased, further supporting the prosecution’s theory of common intention.
3. Forensic Evidence Not a Decisive Factor
   • The court ruled that forensic uncertainty regarding the bullet did not weaken the case, given the strength of the dying declaration.

Conclusion and Significance

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and imposed life sentences on all accused. The judgment reinforces the evidentiary value of dying declarations and clarifies the applicability of Section 34 IPC in cases of group crimes. This case underscores the importance of victim statements and the necessity of a thorough appreciation of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.

References:

• Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 2685 of 2023.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Arms Act, 1959.
• Supreme Court judgments on dying declarations and common intention.