Introduction

The landmark case of Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (2023 INSC 924) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on October 18, 2023, addresses critical issues surrounding the admissibility and reliability of multiple dying declarations in criminal convictions. The appellant, Abhishek Sharma, was initially convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a decision upheld by the High Court of Delhi. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, significant scrutiny was applied to the evidentiary value of the dying declarations presented during trial, ultimately leading to the reversal of his conviction.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court examined the foundation of Abhishek Sharma's conviction, which predominantly relied on four dying declarations (DDs) made by the deceased, Mandeep Kaur. Upon meticulous analysis, the Court identified several inconsistencies and potential issues related to the voluntariness and reliability of these declarations. The High Court had previously affirmed the conviction based on the consistency of the DDs and the corroborative testimonies from witnesses. However, the Supreme Court found substantial gaps in the evidence, particularly concerning the integrity of the DDs and the lack of independent corroborative evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, discharged the bail bonds, and overturned the prior conviction, emphasizing the necessity for impeccable reliability in relying on dying declarations for convictions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several Supreme Court precedents that delineate the handling and evaluation of dying declarations in criminal cases:

• Kamla (Smt) v. State Of Punjab (1993): Established that DDs can be sole basis for conviction if they are free from infirmities and satisfy various tests of reliability.
• State Of Punjab v. Parveen Kumar (2005): Emphasized the necessity for DDs to be truthful and consistent, especially when multiple declarations are involved.
• Amol Singh v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2008): Highlighted that inconsistencies in DDs must be evaluated based on their materiality.
• Lakhan v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2010): Asserted that higher authority-recorded DDs can be relied upon unless they are suspicious.
• Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013): Stressed independent assessment of each DD irrespective of variations in other declarations.
• Jagbir Singh (S) v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019): Provided a framework for evaluating multiple DDs and their consistency.
• Uttam v. State Of Maharashtra (2022): Detailed the factors courts should consider when DDs are contradictory.

Additionally, cases like Chacko v. State Of Kerala (2003), P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka (2003), and Surinder Kumar v. State Of Haryana (2011) were cited to discuss the impact of the victim's physical condition on the reliability of DDs.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously dissected each of the four DDs presented during the trial, evaluating their admissibility based on established legal principles:

• DD-I: Recorded by a duty officer, this DD was found to be hearsay as it was reported by a third person and not directly by the deceased. The Court ruled it inadmissible.
• DD-II: An entry in the Medico-Legal Inquiry Register by Dr. Raj included the mention of the appellant's name without adequate verification, raising suspicions of interception and manipulation.
• DD-III: Despite being the most detailed DD, it lacked verification from the medical team regarding the deceased's mental state and influences of administered medications, casting doubt on its reliability.
• DD-IV: Provided by the victim's mother, an interested witness, this DD was inconsistent with other declarations and lacked independent corroboration, leading to its rejection.

The Court emphasized that the mere existence of multiple DDs does not guarantee their reliability. Each declaration must be scrutinized on its own merits, ensuring consistency, voluntariness, and freedom from external influences. The absence of independent corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution's case, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.

Impact

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding stringent evidentiary standards, especially concerning DDs. By setting a higher bar for the acceptance of multiple DDs, the Court reinforces the necessity for:

• Rigorous verification of the victim's mental and physical state at the time of making the declaration.
• Independent corroborative evidence to support DDs, particularly when inconsistencies exist.
• Careful evaluation of testimonies from interested witnesses to prevent undue influence or bias.

Consequently, future cases will likely require more robust and independently verifiable evidence when relying on multiple DDs for convictions. This serves as a preventive measure against miscarriages of justice stemming from unreliable or manipulated declarations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Abhishek Sharma v. State serves as a pivotal reminder of the rigorous standards required for the admissibility and reliability of multiple dying declarations in criminal law. By critically evaluating each DD on its individual merits and emphasizing the necessity for independent corroborative evidence, the Court reinforces the principles of fair trial and justice. This decision not only safeguards the rights of the accused against potential miscarriages of justice but also ensures that convictions are based on incontrovertible evidence. Legal practitioners and courts are thus reminded to uphold the sanctity of evidentiary standards, particularly when dealing with sensitive and emotionally charged declarations such as DDs.