Supreme Court Reaffirms the Primacy of Dying Declarations Over Inconclusive Ballistic Evidence

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) (2025 INSC 324), had to determine whether a set of accused could be convicted primarily on the strength of the victim’s dying declaration, where other evidence—such as ballistic examination—did not conclusively link the fatal bullet to the recovered firearm. The case involved three appellants (Accused Nos. 1, 2, and 3) who were convicted for the murder of one Nagender Yadav. The trial court’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by the High Court, following which the Supreme Court considered the matter on appeal.

The key legal question centered on the reliability of the dying declaration made by the deceased shortly after he suffered a gunshot wound, and whether the inconclusive ballistic report could undermine the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court ultimately held that, under the circumstances presented, the dying declaration was credible, even in the absence of conclusive forensic evidence matching the projectile to the weapon.

This commentary explores the factual background of the case, analyzes the legal reasoning placed before the Court, examines the precedents cited, and explains the overall impact of this decision on the future of criminal jurisprudence—particularly as it relates to the evidentiary value of dying declarations.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The appellants had been found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of the victim. Accused No.1 faced additional convictions under the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27(1)), resulting in additional imprisonment and fines.

The Court reasoned that the prosecution had successfully proven that the victim identified his attackers immediately before he died, with the evidence of two eye-witness relatives (PW-1 and PW-2) corroborating the dying declaration. The inconclusiveness of the ballistic matching was deemed insignificant, as the dying declaration was sufficiently solid and supported by other aspects of the prosecution’s case.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

While the Judgment does not explicitly list every cited precedent, it aligns with a well-established line of Indian jurisprudence that dying declarations—if found credible and voluntary—can be relied upon to the fullest extent, even in the absence of other corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court has historically held that such statements, given by persons on the verge of death, carry intrinsic reliability, though the Court must scrutinize the circumstances in which the declarations are made.

By reaffirming these principles, the Supreme Court cites the broader judicial stance that forensic or ballistic inconclusiveness does not inevitably exonerate an accused where direct and reliable evidence, such as a dying declaration, is present. This approach fortifies the stance observed in earlier cases under the Indian Evidence Act, which upholds the admissibility and weight of dying declarations.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be broken down as follows:

1. Dying Declaration Credibility: The judgment places special emphasis on the consistency and credibility of the dying declaration made to PW-1 (the victim’s wife) and PW-2 (the victim’s brother), noting that the victim specifically named all three accused. Neither witness showed any contradiction when cross-examined, and their narratives remained consistent with the initial statements.
2. Observation of Witness Conduct: Both PW-1 and PW-2 are close relatives of the deceased, so the Court exercised heightened scrutiny. However, their testimonies were found to be consistent and free of major contradictions. The Court further observed that the victim recognized the accused because they were well-known to him beforehand and, therefore, the possibility of mistaken identity in the dark was minimal—particularly with street lighting in the vicinity.
3. Ballistic Evidence Not Decisive: The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) concluded that it could not be definitively determined if the bullet recovered from the victim’s body was fired from the weapon recovered at the instance of Accused No.1. The Court held that any gap in ballistic evidence did not invalidate the otherwise credible dying declaration. Hence, the “incompetent ballistic match” was not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
4. Common Intention and Section 34 IPC: The Court found sufficient testimony and circumstantial evidence (including pre-existing enmity and the collective conduct of the accused) to establish that all accused were acting with a common intention to commit the offense.

C. Impact

This ruling carries a significant impact for future criminal proceedings in India:

• Reinforced Value of Dying Declarations: The Supreme Court has once again underscored the importance of dying declarations as potent evidence in securing convictions. Investigating agencies and trial courts can place reliance on such statements if they are found to be voluntary and consistent.
• Reduced Reliance on Corroborative Forensics: While forensic evidence (such as ballistic matching) remains vital, this Judgment makes clear that inconclusive forensic results alone cannot derail an otherwise solid case built on credible direct evidence like a dying declaration.
• Emphasis on Scrutiny: Coupled with the emphasis on careful cross-examination and scrutiny of consistency, this Judgment reminds prosecutors and defenders alike that a single strong strand of evidence can be determinative if found genuine, voluntary, and unimpeachable under the rigors of adversarial testing.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Certain crucial legal concepts play a pivotal role in this Judgment:

1. Dying Declaration: A statement made by a victim, typically in imminent fear or danger of death, regarding the cause or circumstances of death. Courts consider such statements admissible pursuant to the Indian Evidence Act, subject to strict scrutiny for voluntariness and clarity. The idea is that a person on the threshold of death is unlikely to lie, ensuring reliability.
2. Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC: Section 302 pertains to the punishment for murder, while Section 34 establishes criminal liability for acts done in furtherance of a common intention. Even if only one accused pulls the trigger, if the rest share the same intent, they can all be held equally responsible.
3. Inconclusive Ballistic Evidence: Refers to situations where firearms or bullets cannot be definitively matched due to limitations in forensic analysis. This Judgment clarifies that inconclusiveness does not cancel out credible direct evidence.
4. Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL): An agency that conducts scientific tests on materials such as soil, weapons, bullets, etc. While their reports often hold great weight, they are not the sole criterion for establishing guilt or innocence.

V. Conclusion

In Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi), the Supreme Court has reiterated a vital principle of Indian criminal jurisprudence: a credible dying declaration can, by itself, form the basis of conviction. The inability of scientific or forensic tests to conclusively prove the link between weapon and bullet does not necessarily overshadow an otherwise cogent account of the incident.

The Judgment stands as an important reminder that while forensic science is critical in modern investigations, it is not the sole determinant of truth. Courts retain the discretion to accept and rely upon well-corroborated and credible testimony, all the more so when it comes from a victim’s final words.

Ultimately, this decision underscores the Indian judiciary’s unwavering commitment to assess the totality of evidence and equity in the pursuit of justice. It provides reassurance that technical challenges in forensic procedures won’t become insurmountable barriers in convicting accused persons, so long as the prosecution successfully discharges its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt—particularly through consistent, believable dying declarations.