Sanjay Kumar Sharmav.State of Bihar & Ors

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court of India on March 11, 2026, arises from a criminal appeal filed by the elder son of a deceased couple against the acquittal of his younger brother (A1) and sister-in-law (A2) by the High Court. The accused were charged with the murder of their parents by setting their house on fire in the early hours of November 23, 2016. The Trial Court convicted them, primarily relying on multiple dying declarations (both written and oral) made by the deceased mother, Kamla Devi, and the motive of property dispute. The High Court reversed the conviction, expressing reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, upheld the acquittal, delivering a scathing critique of a deeply flawed investigation, unreliable dying declarations, interested witnesses, and a procedurally defective trial. The case serves as a powerful reminder of the high standard of proof required in criminal trials and the consequences of overzealous, biased investigation that sacrifices truth for perceived vengeance.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 223

Court: Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15378 of 2024

Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran

Nature of Bench: Division Bench

Date of Judgment: March 11, 2026

2. Legal Framework and Relevant Provisions

• Substantive Laws:
  Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 302: Punishment for murder.
  Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

• Procedural/Evidence Law:
  Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  Section 32(1): Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead is itself a relevant fact (dying declarations).
  Section 8: Motive, preparation, and previous or subsequent conduct.
  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 161: Examination of witnesses by police.
  Section 313: Power to examine the accused – opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances.
  Section 154: Information in cognizable cases (FIR).

• Key Precedents Relied Upon (Dying Declarations):
  Laxman v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 710 (Constitution Bench): The authoritative judgment on dying declarations. Held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it inspires confidence. A doctor's certification of fitness is not mandatory if the court can otherwise infer the deceased was in a fit state of mind from the circumstances.
  Atbir v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 1: Summarized the principles governing dying declarations, including that they can be the sole basis for conviction if true and voluntary, and that the rule requiring corroboration is one of prudence, not law.
  Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 265: On multiple dying declarations and the court's duty to determine which is believable.
  Bhajju @ Karan Singh v. State of M.P. (2012) 4 SCC 327: On the reliability of dying declarations in burn cases.
  Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 224: On consistency in multiple dying declarations.
  Satish Chandra v. State of M.P. (2014) 6 SCC 723: On the form of dying declarations (narrative vs. question-answer).

• Key Precedents Relied Upon (Section 313 CrPC):
  Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 2 SCC 385: Reiterated the duty of the prosecutor and the court to put all incriminating circumstances to the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC. Failure to do so can cause prejudice and vitiate the trial.
  Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793: Emphasized the importance of a thorough Section 313 examination in grave cases.
  Sanjay Kumar & Anr. v. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No.860 of 2026, dated 12.02.2026) (authored by Sanjay Kumar, J.): A recent judgment from the same Bench reiterating that inadequate Section 313 questioning is a serious infirmity.

• Other Key Principles:
  Standard of proof in criminal trials: guilt must be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt," not merely "maybe true" (Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab).
  Duty of the Investigating Officer: To conduct a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation, including drawing up a scene mahazar, conducting forensic examination, and examining independent witnesses.
  Interested Witnesses: Testimony of witnesses with a personal interest in the outcome must be scrutinized with great care.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case

• On the early morning of November 23, 2016, a shanty (hut) in which an elderly couple, Sarangdhar Singh (a lawyer) and his wife Kamla Devi, were residing was gutted in a fire. Sarangdhar Singh died at the scene, and Kamla Devi succumbed to her injuries two days later in a Patna hospital.

• The accused were the couple's younger son (A1 - Mukul @ Saurabh Kumar) and his wife (A2 - Soni). The elder son, Sanjay Kumar Sharma, was the appellant before the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the High Court's acquittal of the accused.

• The prosecution's case was that the accused, due to a long-standing property dispute and enmity, torched the hut with the intention of murdering the parents.

• The prosecution relied on:
  Motive: Ill-will between the father and younger son over non-receipt of due share in ancestral property. Complaints (Exhibits P4-P10) allegedly made by the deceased father against the son were produced.
  Written Dying Declarations:
  The FIR (First Information Statement) itself, recorded by PW7 (PSI) at the hospital, which was treated as the dying declaration of Kamla Devi.
  A statement recorded by PW8 (Block Development Officer, an Executive Magistrate) at the hospital on the same day.
  Oral Dying Declarations: Testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, who claimed that Kamla Devi, soon after the fire or at the hospital, told them that A1 and A2 had set the house on fire.
  Medical Evidence: Testimony of PW10, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, who opined that Kamla Devi (with 60% burns) would have been in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration.

• The Trial Court convicted both accused.

• The High Court acquitted them, leading to the present appeal by the elder son (the complainant/victim's son).

4. Issues Before the Supreme Court

• Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused by doubting the veracity of the multiple dying declarations?

• Whether the dying declarations (both written and oral) were reliable, free from tutoring or prompting, and made by the deceased in a fit state of mind?

• Whether the investigation was fair, thorough, and free from bias, and whether its deficiencies fatally wounded the prosecution's case?

• Whether the Trial Court's examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was adequate and complied with legal requirements?

5. Ratio Decidendi of the Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order of acquittal, with the following key findings:

• Overzealous Investigation is Fatal: The Court opened with a strong condemnation of the investigation, calling it a "sham" and "pre-mediated." The investigation was not a quest for truth but a selective, careless pursuit aimed at nailing the accused based on public perception and personal predilections.

• Dying Declarations are Unreliable: After an exhaustive review of the law on dying declarations, the Court found that none of the declarations in this case inspired confidence.
  The FIR as Dying Declaration: The FIS was recorded at the hospital with villagers and relatives present. It contained a long, detailed narrative of the family history, which was highly improbable from a grievously burnt woman. No medical certification of fitness was obtained. The circumstances surrounding its recording put its veracity "to peril."
  The BDO's Statement: Recorded at 11:30 AM, again with villagers and relatives present. No medical certification was obtained. The BDO and IO contradicted each other on who wrote it. It did not inspire confidence.
  Oral Dying Declarations: The testimonies of the witnesses who claimed to have heard oral dying declarations were from interested parties (PW1, who managed the deceased's property; PW2 and PW3, relatives of PW1; PW5 and PW6, the elder son and his uncle). Their accounts were inconsistent. Crucially, the witnesses who first raised the alarm (a woman threshing paddy) were never examined. This was a "very serious lacuna."

• Motive Not Proven: The motive of property dispute was demolished by PW6 (the elder son/appellant) himself, who stated in court that he was willing to give the accused their 50% share of the property, which he had obtained through a partition suit.

• Grossly Deficient Investigation: The Court catalogued multiple fatal flaws:
  No scene mahazar (site inspection report) was prepared.
  No forensic examination was conducted to determine the cause of the fire (arson vs. accidental, such as a gas cylinder burst).
  The presence of the accused near the crime scene at the time of the incident was not established.
  The person who provided shelter to the accused in the village (Lali @ Lalwa) was not examined.
  Independent witnesses (the woman who raised the alarm, the men who helped take the victim to the hospital) were not examined.
  The recovery of partially burnt complaints (Exhibits P4-P10) was highly suspicious as they were not seized through a proper mahazar at the crime scene but were produced directly by PW6.

• Fatal Defect in Section 313 CrPC Examination: The Trial Court's examination of the accused was woefully inadequate. Only four general questions were put to them. None of the incriminating circumstances—the motive, the complaints, the various dying declarations, the medical evidence—were put to the accused to afford them an opportunity to explain. Relying on Ashok v. State of U.P. and Shivaji Bobade, the Court held that this alone was an "incurable injustice" that could vitiate the trial. However, given the other overwhelming deficiencies, a remand was not ordered.

• Medical Opinion on "Fit State of Mind" Unreliable: The doctor's (PW10) opinion, based solely on the post-mortem report, that the deceased would have been in a fit state of mind was held to be without credence. A pathologist examining a cadaver cannot make such a determination about a living person's mental state at a previous time, especially given the extent of burns described.

6. Legal Framework Clarified / Reaffirmed

This judgment does not create new law but serves as a powerful and authoritative reaffirmation of several bedrock principles of criminal jurisprudence:

• Dying Declarations: A Reiteration of Principles: The Court meticulously restated the law on dying declarations from Laxman and Atbir, emphasizing that they must "inspire confidence," be free from tutoring, and be made in a fit state of mind. The judgment provides a practical checklist for evaluating such declarations, including scrutiny of the circumstances of recording, the presence of interested parties, and the need for medical certification (though not mandatory, it is highly desirable).

• Duty of the Investigating Officer: The judgment is a scathing critique of investigative failures. It reaffirms that an investigation must be fair, thorough, and impartial. Essential steps like preparing a scene mahazar, conducting forensic analysis, and examining independent witnesses are not optional but fundamental to a fair trial. Cutting corners and pursuing a pre-determined narrative are antithetical to the rule of law.

• Sanctity of Section 313 CrPC: The judgment strongly reinforces the vital importance of a proper examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC. It is not a mere formality but a crucial safeguard that allows the accused to explain incriminating circumstances. The Court, echoing Ashok v. U.P., places a joint duty on the judge and the prosecutor to ensure that all incriminating material is put to the accused. Failure to do so can be fatal to the conviction.

• Standard of Proof: The Court reiterated the classic formulation from Sarwan Singh: the prosecution's case must be "must be true," not merely "maybe true." The entire distance from suspicion to proof must be paved with legal, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence.

• Interested Witnesses: The testimony of witnesses with a personal stake in the outcome (here, relatives aligned against the accused) must be scrutinized with great care and cannot be accepted without independent corroboration.

7. Court's Examination and Analysis

The Supreme Court's analysis was exhaustive, critical, and evidence-centric:

• Opening Salvo on Investigation: The judgment began by framing the entire case as a product of "overzealous investigation" that sacrificed truth for "perceived vengeance." This set the tone for the entire analysis.

• Detailed Review of Dying Declaration Law: The Court first consolidated the legal principles from multiple precedents, creating a comprehensive framework for evaluating dying declarations.

• Meticulous Scrutiny of Each Dying Declaration:
  The FIR: The Court questioned why an FIS was recorded from the victim at all when the police had been at the scene and could have recorded statements from the many villagers present. It highlighted the improbability of a grievously burnt woman giving a long, detailed narrative of family history, especially with relatives hovering around.
  The BDO's Statement: The Court noted the absence of a doctor's certification and the contradictory evidence about who actually wrote the statement. The presence of relatives again raised the specter of tutoring.
  Oral Declarations: The Court cross-referenced the testimonies of PWs 1-6, highlighting inconsistencies (e.g., PW4 denying any dying declaration). It identified a clear pattern of interested witnesses (relatives of the complainant) and pointed out the prosecution's failure to examine the most independent witnesses (the woman who raised the alarm, the men who took the victim to the hospital).

• Exposure of Investigative Lapses: The Court systematically listed the failures: no scene mahazar, no forensic fire analysis, failure to examine key independent witnesses, and the suspicious production of "recovered" documents (Exhibits P4-P10) without proper seizure.

• Scathing Critique of Section 313 Examination: The Court reproduced the four inadequate questions put to the accused and contrasted them with the mass of incriminating evidence on record. It cited its own recent judgment (Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar) to underscore the gravity of this procedural lapse.

• Rejection of Medical Opinion: The Court dismissed PW10's testimony as lacking any scientific or logical basis, highlighting that a pathologist cannot retrospectively certify a deceased person's mental fitness from a post-mortem report.

• Demolition of Motive: The Court used the testimony of the complainant himself (PW6) to destroy the prosecution's primary motive, showing that the property dispute was, at least in the witness's own view, resolvable.

• Conclusion on Investigation and Trial: The cumulative effect of all these flaws led the Court to conclude that the investigation was a "sham" and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court's acquittal was therefore correct.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

• Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the elder son, thereby upholding the High Court's judgment acquitting the younger son and his wife of all charges.

• Critical Perspectives:
  Strengths: The judgment is a monumental triumph for the principles of a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. It serves as a powerful check against biased and shoddy police work. By upholding the acquittal despite the gruesome nature of the crime and the societal pressure to convict someone, the Court demonstrated its unwavering commitment to the rule of law over mob justice. The detailed critique of the dying declarations provides an invaluable guide for trial courts.
  Protection of the Accused: The judgment protects two individuals and their family from a wrongful conviction based on manufactured evidence and a procedurally defective trial. It recognizes the "trauma of arrest, incarceration and trial" and the "yoke of dishonour" they would have carried. The emphasis on the inadequate Section 313 examination is a crucial safeguard against trial courts taking shortcuts.
  Systemic Critique: The judgment is not just about this case; it is a systemic critique of investigative and trial practices. It calls out the "pick and choose" method of examining witnesses, the failure to conduct basic forensic work, and the casual approach to recording dying declarations. It serves as a strong warning to investigators and trial judges to adhere to established procedures.
  Potential Criticism: Some might argue that the Court was overly technical and that the multiple dying declarations, despite their flaws, pointed to the accused's guilt. However, the Court's reasoning is legally sound. Dying declarations are a special form of evidence precisely because they are made in extremis, and their reliability must be beyond doubt. The presence of interested parties, the lack of medical certification, and the improbability of a long narrative from a dying woman are all valid reasons to doubt them.
  The Unanswered Question: The tragic death of the elderly couple remains unresolved. The Court acknowledged this, stating that the "cause, whether it's a homicide or accidental death, eludes civil society." However, in a criminal justice system, it is better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent person is convicted. This judgment is a stark application of that principle.

• Core Final Directive: A conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of dying declarations that are recorded under suspicious circumstances, without medical certification of fitness, and in the presence of interested parties. An investigation that is biased, incomplete, and fails to follow basic procedural requirements (scene mahazar, forensic examination, examination of independent witnesses) vitiates the entire prosecution. Most fundamentally, a trial is fatally flawed if the accused is not given a fair opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances through a proper examination under Section 313 CrPC. The duty of the court and the prosecutor is to ensure this safeguard is scrupulously followed.

(MCQs)

1. According to the Constitution Bench judgment in Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, which of the following is true regarding the admissibility of a dying declaration?
A) It is inadmissible unless it is recorded by a Magistrate.
B) It must always be corroborated by independent evidence.
C) It can be the sole basis for conviction if it inspires the confidence of the court, and a doctor's certification of fitness is not mandatory if the court can otherwise infer a fit state of mind.
D) It is admissible only if the deceased was conscious at the time of making it, which must be certified by a doctor.

2. In Sanjay Kumar Sharma v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the Trial Court's examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was inadequate primarily because:?
A) The accused were not given enough time to answer.
B) The prosecutor was not present during the examination.
C) The specific and numerous incriminating circumstances on record were not put to the accused, denying them a fair opportunity to explain.
D) The questions were put in a language the accused did not understand.

3. Which of the following was NOT cited by the Supreme Court as a fatal flaw in the investigation of this case?
A) Failure to prepare a scene mahazar.
B) Failure to conduct a forensic examination to determine the cause of the fire.
C) Failure to obtain a confession from the accused.
D) Failure to examine independent witnesses who first raised the alarm.

4. The Supreme Court held that the testimony of PW10, the doctor, regarding the deceased's fit state of mind was unreliable because:?
A) He had not treated the deceased.
B) He was a defense witness.
C) His opinion was based solely on the post-mortem report of a cadaver, which cannot determine a living person's mental state at a previous time.
D) He had not performed the post-mortem himself.