A Dying Declaration That Fails Legal and Medical Tests Cannot Decide a Man’s Fate: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Tarun Sharma

“Fair trial demands more than a token lawyer and a questionable statement — the right to life and liberty is not to be lost in procedural shortcuts,” declared the Supreme Court in a strongly worded judgment acquitting Tarun Sharma, who had spent over a decade in custody for murder, solely on the basis of a tainted dying declaration.

In a landmark ruling Supreme Court set aside the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, finding that the trial and appellate courts had relied entirely on a legally unsustainable dying declaration (Exh. P-34). The Court ruled that the declaration was "riddled with infirmities", lacked medical authentication, was unsupported by forensic evidence, and was directly contradicted by key witnesses and medical officers.

Tarun Sharma had been convicted in 2013 and his appeal was dismissed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 2024 — in a hearing conducted in the absence of his counsel, where the court appointed an amicus and concluded the matter the same day. The Supreme Court found this to be a grave violation of Article 21, emphasising that the right to legal representation is not an empty ritual.

“Right to Legal Representation Is Not a Ritual — It Must Be Real, Effective, and Fair”: SC Rebukes High Court’s Hasty Appeal Hearing

The case reached the Supreme Court after the High Court, on September 18, 2024, insisted on hearing the criminal appeal despite the absence of the appellant’s advocate and appointed an amicus curiae on the spot without giving him any time to prepare or consult with the accused. The appeal was dismissed just six days later.

Slamming this approach, the Court held: “The right to be represented by a lawyer must not be an empty formality. It must not be a sham or an eyewash... The appointment of an amicus curiae must be meaningful, with adequate time and opportunity for preparation.”

Relying on precedents like Chaluvegowda v. State, Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam, and Anokhilal v. State of M.P., the Court observed that in cases where life or liberty is at stake, courts must act with heightened responsibility and not reduce legal aid to a procedural checkbox.

“The procedure adopted by the High Court is not only contrary to the Rules... but also contrary to the fair trial which is the first imperative of dispensation of justice.”

“No One Saw, No One Heard, No Medical Record Supports It – Then How Did the Dying Declaration Become Gospel Truth?”: Supreme Court Raises Serious Questions

The Supreme Court dissected the dying declaration (Exh. P-34), allegedly made by the deceased Munish Kumar while undergoing treatment after a knife attack. This statement accused Tarun Sharma and others of the assault.

But the Court found severe lapses that made the declaration wholly unreliable:

“Neither was the doctor who issued the fitness certificate (Exh. P-33) examined, nor was the time of recording the statement mentioned. The Investigating Officer failed to record his own satisfaction that the injured was in a fit state of mind to make the statement.”

Even more damning was the evidence of Amit Bakshi (PW-1), the deceased’s own brother, who was present during the incident but categorically denied the prosecution’s version. He testified that “Munish remained unconscious throughout and was never in a position to speak”. He added that “due to darkness, the assailants could not be identified” and that “the accused present in court had not caused any injuries to Munish”.

This was supported by two government doctors — Dr. Vijay Vivek (PW-9) and Dr. Nand Kumar Jha (PW-10) — both of whom testified that the victim was drowsy, disoriented, and not in a condition to speak.

“It was categorically stated by PW-1, PW-9, and PW-10 that Munish was unconscious and could never have made any statement. Yet, the conviction rests solely on a statement whose very making is in doubt.”

The Court concluded that the entire dying declaration lacked credibility, procedural compliance, medical support, and contemporaneous corroboration.

“Trial Courts Must Not Be Spectators When Truth Is at Stake”: SC Faults Trial Court for Failing to Summon Crucial Medical Witness

The Court didn’t spare the trial judge, who it said had a duty under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 311 CrPC to summon the doctor who certified the victim as fit to give the dying declaration — especially when the prosecution had failed to do so.

“The trial court acted with total apathy... This was undeniably a fit case where the Presiding Officer ought to have exercised the powers vested under Section 311 CrPC to examine the certifying doctor as a court witness.”

Adding to the procedural mess, the prosecution failed to submit even basic hospital records from GMCH and PGI Chandigarh, where the deceased was allegedly treated. The Court observed that such omissions "compel an adverse inference against the prosecution."

“If Other Accused Named in the Dying Declaration Were Acquitted or Not Even Charged, How Can One Be Convicted on Same Statement?”: SC Questions Selective Acceptance of Evidence

The dying declaration had accused not just Tarun Sharma, but also Sanjay, Bittoo, and one unknown person. The prosecution did not even charge Sanjay, and Bittoo was acquitted by the same trial court that convicted Tarun.

“Even the trial court and the High Court did not fully accept the version set out in the dying declaration. How then can it be used as the sole basis for convicting one accused?”

The Court found it inconsistent and unsustainable to convict one accused while disbelieving the same evidence against others, especially when no independent corroboration existed.

“Mere Recovery of a Knife Without Forensic Link Cannot Substitute for Guilt”: Court Discredits Weapon Recovery as Inconsequential

The prosecution also sought to bolster its case through the recovery of a knife allegedly used in the crime, found at the instance of Tarun Sharma. But the Supreme Court noted:

“The FSL report did not show any blood group. No serological match was established. In the absence of such scientific corroboration, the recovery remains inconsequential.”

The Court reiterated that “mere recovery of a weapon, even if blood-stained, is insufficient to prove guilt where primary evidence is unreliable.”

Supreme Court Acquits, Orders Immediate Release of Tarun Sharma

Declaring that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court concluded:

“Neither could the prosecution prove the faithful recording of the statement/dying declaration nor establish it as an unimpeachable document. Such a doubtful piece of evidence cannot be the foundation of conviction.”

Setting aside both the trial court’s conviction (dated August 26, 2013) and the High Court’s judgment (dated September 24, 2024), the Court acquitted Tarun Sharma of all charges under Section 302 IPC and ordered his immediate release, unless required in another case.

“Convictions Cannot Be Built on Suspicion, Assumptions, or Procedural Formalities Disguised as Justice”: Supreme Court

In this powerful ruling, the Court reiterated the core of criminal jurisprudence:

“The principles of fair trial and effective representation are not procedural gimmicks but foundational guarantees of our criminal justice system, which cannot be compromised or breached.”

The case of Tarun Sharma stands as a sobering reminder that when courts shortcut due process, the price is paid in human years, lost liberty, and a justice system that loses its moral compass.

Date of Decision: September 1, 2025