Recently, the Supreme Court cautioned that an overzealous investigation can be as damaging to justice as a negligent one, while dismissing an appeal challenging the acquittal of a son and his wife, accused of murdering his elderly parents in a house fire. The Court affirmed the High Court’s acquittal after finding serious investigative lapses and unreliable dying declarations. The Court observed that “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.”
Brief facts:
The case arose from a fatal house fire in which an elderly couple sustained severe burn injuries, resulting in their deaths, following which the prosecution alleged that the incident was a deliberate act of arson committed by the couple’s son and daughter-in-law due to disputes over ancestral property. The prosecution primarily relied on multiple alleged dying declarations of the deceased woman and testimonies of relatives and villagers to establish motive and culpability. Based on this circumstantial evidence, the trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but the High Court later set aside the conviction, citing inconsistencies in the dying declarations, non-examination of independent witnesses, and serious lapses in the investigation. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court through a criminal appeal arising out of a Special Leave Petition, seeking restoration of the conviction.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the High Court had erred in reversing the conviction despite the presence of multiple dying declarations clearly implicating the accused. The Counsel argued that the statements made by the deceased, recorded both in the First Information Statement and later by an Executive Magistrate, consistently pointed to the involvement of the accused in setting the house on fire. The Appellant further relied on established principles that a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if found reliable, and submitted that the medical evidence confirming the victim’s mental alertness supported the credibility of the declarations.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Respondent argued that the prosecution’s case was built on motivated accusations and a flawed investigation. The Counsel submitted that the dying declarations were recorded in suspicious circumstances, often in the presence of interested relatives, and lacked independent corroboration. The defence also highlighted that several crucial witnesses who first noticed the fire were never examined, and that the investigation had selectively relied on testimonies of persons hostile to the accused due to property disputes. According to the respondents, these serious lapses justified the High Court’s decision to acquit.
Observation of the Court:
The Court reiterated, while referring to several precedents including Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, and Atbir v. Government of NCT of Delhi, that although a dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction, it must inspire complete confidence and be free from suspicion, tutoring, or coercion.
The Bench noted that the First Information Statement recorded from the injured victim contained an unusually detailed narrative about family disputes, which appeared improbable given the victim’s serious burn injuries. The Court also noted that the statement was recorded in the presence of villagers and relatives, raising the possibility of prompting or influence. Similar doubts arose regarding the second dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, which lacked medical certification regarding the mental fitness of the victim and was allegedly written by the investigating officer rather than the magistrate.
The Court further observed that key independent witnesses were deliberately withheld by the prosecution, particularly the woman whose cries had first alerted villagers to the fire. The Bench described this omission as a “very serious lacuna in prosecution”, since such a witness could have provided crucial insight into how the fire began.
The Bench also identified significant lapses in the investigation, including the failure to conduct a forensic examination of the crime scene, the absence of a scene mahazar, and the lack of inquiry into the possibility of an accidental fire caused by a gas cylinder explosion. The Court observed that “there was a concerted effort by the Investigating Officer not to bring any independent witnesses to the stand,” describing the investigation as “a sham and premeditated, throwing to the winds every tenet of criminal jurisprudence.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the unreliable dying declarations, absence of independent corroboration, and glaring deficiencies in the investigation, the Apex Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and credible chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s acquittal of the accused, reiterating that criminal convictions cannot rest on suspicion, public perception, or poorly conducted investigations.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case No.: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15378/2024
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Smarhar Singh, Adv. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Pankaj Prakash, Adv. Mohd Asim, Adv. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Yash Thakur,
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Vipin Sanghi, AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Vikas Singh Jangra, Adv. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Ekta Kundu, Adv. Om Prakash Singh,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
