Dying declaration carries gravest evidentiary weight: PH High Court Upholds Life Sentence

Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the life sentence of Tarun Sharma, dismissing his appeal against the 2013 conviction for the murder of Munish Kumar. In its judgment, the Court reinforced the critical value of dying declarations in criminal trials, particularly when corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the murder weapon. The decision emphasizes the strong evidentiary weight carried by such declarations, sealing Sharma’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case stems from a brutal assault that occurred on March 31, 2012, when Munish Kumar was attacked near Mullana, Ambala. According to the prosecution, Munish Kumar and his brother Amit Kumar were returning from Ambala when they were ambushed by Tarun Sharma and three others. The group, driving a Scorpio and Alto car, overtook Munish's car, forcing him to stop. What followed was a violent attack in which Tarun Sharma stabbed Munish in the stomach, while his accomplices beat him with sticks and confined Amit in the car. Munish was later rushed to multiple hospitals, but succumbed to his injuries despite medical intervention.

The police registered an FIR on April 1, 2012, under various sections of the IPC, including 302 (murder), 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention), and 506 (criminal intimidation). The investigation revealed that the motive for the attack was linked to a financial dispute involving a vehicle loan installment.

The Additional Sessions Judge of Ambala convicted Tarun Sharma under Section 302/34 IPC on August 26, 2013, based largely on the dying declaration of Munish Kumar, corroborating medical evidence, and the recovery of the murder weapon. Sharma was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined ₹5,000. Three other accused, Sandeep Sharma, Balwinder alias Bitto, and Deepak Bhardwaj, were acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Dissatisfied with the verdict, Tarun Sharma appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking to overturn the conviction.

The primary contention in Sharma's appeal was the reliability of the dying declaration made by Munish Kumar, which directly implicated him in the murder. The defense argued that:

Unreliability of the Dying Declaration: Sharma’s counsel, Ms. Ekta Thakur, claimed that the dying declaration was improperly recorded and should not have been given significant evidentiary value. The defense also highlighted the lack of examination of the doctor who declared Munish fit to give his statement.

Non-recovery of the Murder Weapon from the Accused: It was argued that while the murder weapon was recovered, there was no direct evidence linking it to the accused.

Misappreciation of Evidence: The defense argued that the trial court misappreciated the evidence and failed to account for discrepancies in witness testimonies.

A division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudepti Sharma rejected the appeal, reaffirming the trial court’s findings. The Court found no merit in the defense’s arguments and ruled that the dying declaration, supported by medical evidence, was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Dying Declaration’s Evidentiary Value: The Court placed significant emphasis on Munish Kumar’s dying declaration, recorded shortly before his death. In his statement, Munish explicitly named Tarun Sharma as the person who stabbed him. The Court observed:

"The dying declaration, as embodied in Ex. P34, constitutes potent incriminatory evidence against the convict-appellant and carries the gravest evidentiary solemnity."

The declaration was deemed valid as the injured victim had been declared fit by a doctor, and no challenge was made to the doctor’s certification during cross-examination.

Corroborating Medical Evidence: The medical evidence played a critical role in corroborating the dying declaration. Dr. Nand Kumar Jha, who treated Munish, testified that the injuries described in the dying declaration matched the stab wound inflicted on Munish’s right chest, leading to liver damage and, ultimately, death. The post-mortem report (Ex. P43) also confirmed that Munish died from hemorrhagic and septic shock caused by a stab wound to the liver.

"The medical evidence is in perfect harmony with the dying declaration, leaving no doubt about the veracity of the prosecution’s case."

Recovery of Murder Weapon: The Court also upheld the relevance of the recovery of the murder weapon. During the investigation, Tarun Sharma provided a disclosure statement (Ex. P27) leading to the recovery of the knife used in the murder. The Court dismissed the defense’s claim that the recovery was fabricated, stating:

"The recovery of the weapon in pursuance of the convict’s disclosure statement lends strong corroboration to the prosecution’s case."

In its final ruling, the High Court dismissed Tarun Sharma’s appeal, stating that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s appreciation of evidence. The judgment noted:

"The convict-appellant’s guilt is proven to the hilt by the dying declaration, medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon of offence."

The Court affirmed the life sentence imposed by the trial court and ordered that Tarun Sharma be taken into custody to serve his sentence.

Date of Decision: September 24, 2024

Tarun Sharma vs. State of Haryana