← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India11 March 20262026 INSC 223

Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar

Bench of 2 · Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Why it matters

Listen

Defence counsel in fire-death and dying-declaration cases can now cite this judgment for two distinct grounds of challenge: (1) a checklist of investigative lapses — absence of scene mahazar, forensic examination, medical certification, and independent witnesses — that collectively destroy the credibility of dying declarations; and (2) the proposition that an omnibus Section 313 CrPC examination that omits specific incriminating circumstances is itself a ground to assail a conviction, without necessarily requiring a remand if the underlying evidence is also insufficient.

Summary

The appellant — the elder son of an elderly couple who died when their thatched shanty was gutted in a fire on 23.11.2016 — challenged the Patna High Court's acquittal of the younger son (A1) and daughter-in-law (A2), who had been convicted by the Trial Court of murder by arson. The prosecution's case rested entirely on motive (a property dispute), two written dying declarations (the FIS recorded by PW7 at the hospital and a statement recorded by the BDO/PW8), and oral dying declarations testified to by PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal. On the dying declarations, the Court found neither written declaration credible: the FIS contained an improbably detailed family history from a grievously burnt woman, was recorded in the presence of a crowd of relatives and villagers, and lacked any medical certification; the BDO's declaration was contradicted by the I.O.'s own testimony as to who actually wrote it, and again no doctor's certification was obtained. The oral declarations were inconsistent and came exclusively from interested witnesses — PW1 (property manager of the deceased), PW2 and PW3 (his nephew and brother), PW5 (uncle aligned with PW6), and PW6 (the elder son who stood to benefit from A1's exclusion). Crucially, PW6 himself admitted he was willing to give A1 a 50% share, thereby demolishing the very motive the prosecution relied upon. The lady whose shouts first alerted the village — the best possible eyewitness to the fire's origin — was never examined. No scene mahazar was drawn, no forensic examination of the site was conducted, the cause of fire (arson vs. accidental gas-cylinder burst) was never investigated, and the memo of arrest was absent from the record.

The Court also delivered a sharp rebuke on the Section 313 CrPC examination: only four omnibus questions were put to both accused, and none of the specific incriminating circumstances — the complaints, the dying declarations, the medical evidence — were individually put to them. Relying on its earlier decision in Sanjay Kumar & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No. 860 of 2026) and the three-Judge Bench ruling in Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 385, the Court reiterated that failure to put every incriminating circumstance to the accused under Section 313 is a solemn duty of both the Court and the Prosecutor, breach of which can by itself cause the entire prosecution to fail. The Court declined to remand for fresh Section 313 examination because the evidence itself fell far short of the "must be true" standard articulated in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637.

Key principle

A dying declaration recorded in the presence of a crowd of interested relatives, without medical certification of the declarant's fitness of mind, and containing an improbably elaborate narrative from a grievously burnt person, does not inspire the confidence required for reliance; and failure to put each incriminating circumstance individually to the accused under Section 313 CrPC is a solemn duty of both the Court and the Prosecutor, breach of which can independently cause the entire prosecution to fail.

Holding

Dismissed — the High Court's acquittal was affirmed because the dying declarations lacked credibility owing to a sham investigation (no scene mahazar, no forensic examination, no independent witnesses, no medical certification), the motive was demolished by the prosecution's own witness, and none of the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.

Statutes invoked

  • Evidence Act, 1872 · 32
  • CrPC · 313
  • CrPC · 161

Practice areas

criminalconstitutional
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.