Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case, Finds Dying Declaration Credible and Directs Accused to Surrender Within One Month
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of three individuals accused of murder, dismissing their appeals against the verdict of the Delhi High Court. The appellants had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court also confirmed the conviction of one of the appellants under the Arms Act, 1959, and directed that all accused surrender within one month to serve the remainder of their sentence.
The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan heard appeals filed by the three accused, challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and subsequently affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The case involved the murder of Nagender Yadav, who was shot outside his residence on the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2012. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the dying declaration made by the deceased to his wife and brother before he succumbed to his injuries.
The case arose from an incident where the deceased, Nagender Yadav, was attacked at his residence. According to the prosecution, the accused no.1, Dinesh Kumar alias Khali, had an altercation with the deceased two years prior to the incident. On the night of May 15, 2012, the deceased, his wife, and their ten-year-old son were asleep in their home when a gunshot was heard at around 12:30 AM. His wife, Bindu, woke up and found the deceased accused numbers 2 and 3, identified as Deepak Kumar alias Chintu and Suresh alias Hanumant.
The deceased’s brother, Ram Singh Yadav, and his nephew, Angad, who lived nearby, arrived at the scene after hearing the commotion. They transported the deceased to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, where he was later referred to RML Hospital, where he was declared dead. The prosecution relied on the statements made by the deceased to his wife and brother as his dying declaration, which was accepted by the trial court and upheld by the High Court.
The defense argued that the dying declaration was unreliable, contending that the deceased might not have been in a condition to identify his assailants due to the darkness at the scene. They also pointed to the presence of an iron gate at the residence, arguing that it was unlikely the accused could have entered. Additionally, the defense emphasized that no formal dying declaration was recorded by the medical professionals who treated the deceased.
The court examined the statements of key witnesses, including the deceased’s wife and brother, and found their testimonies to be consistent and credible. The court noted that there were no material contradictions in their statements. The deceased’s wife stated, “I saw that my husband was calling me by my name… and he was coming from the gate side in a bending position and he was crying with pain. I switched on the light and I saw blood was oozing out from the abdomen of my husband… I asked my husband about the injury, then my husband told me to call my family members and told me that accused Dinesh @ Khali had shot him.”
The deceased’s brother also testified that on their way to the hospital, the deceased identified his attackers, stating, “My brother Nagender told me that accused Dinesh had caused bullet injury to him and accused Suresh and Deepak were also with him at the time of incident.” The court observed that there was no suggestion in cross-examination that the deceased was unable to speak at the time of his statements.
The court rejected the defense’s contention that the presence of darkness could have prevented the deceased from identifying the accused, stating that the accused were known to him, and a streetlight was present in the vicinity. The court also considered the forensic evidence, which included the recovery of a country-made pistol from the accused no.1. The forensic expert confirmed that the weapon was functional, but the bullet recovered from the deceased’s body could not be definitively linked to it. The court held that this discrepancy did not weaken the prosecution’s case, given the strength of the dying declaration.
The court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court and the High Court. It held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court recorded, “Looking at the evidence on record, Section 34 of IPC has been correctly applied to the facts of the case. From the conduct of the accused persons reflected from the evidence on record, common intention on their part was duly proved.”
Dismissing the appeals, the court directed the accused to surrender within one month to serve the remainder of their life sentences. It also clarified that their cases for permanent remission would be considered as per the law when they become eligible.
Case Title: Suresh @ Hanumant v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 324
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2685 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 1250 of 2023, and Criminal Appeal No. 3685 of 2023
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
[Read/Download order]
