Abhishek Sharma vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Background
Abhishek Sharma, a customer-care executive, was convicted of murdering his colleague Mandeep Kaur by setting her on fire near a school in Delhi in 2007, allegedly after she rejected his affections in favour of their boss. He was convicted under Section 302 IPC by the trial court and the conviction was upheld by the Delhi High Court, largely on the strength of four separate "dying declarations" the victim reportedly made before she died, to a police officer at the scene, to a doctor, to the investigating officer (which formed the basis of the FIR), and to her mother.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of the law on multiple dying declarations, restating that such statements can be the sole basis of conviction only if they are voluntary, reliable, made in a fit state of mind, and mutually consistent. Examining each of the four declarations individually, the Court found serious defects in all of them: the first was three levels of hearsay and inadmissible; the second was a bare, unembellished note with an unexplained gap before the accused's name was added, raising suspicion of interpolation; the third (which led to the FIR) was not recorded before a doctor or magistrate and there was no evidence about the victim's medical/mental fitness at the time; and the fourth, given to her mother, came from an interested witness and materially contradicted the other statements. The Court also flagged unexplained gaps in the police investigation (such as how the accused's employer was contacted before the FIR named him) and noted a complete absence of independent corroborating evidence: no proof of the accused owning a vehicle, no established motive of the required intensity, and no link between him and the inflammable substance used. Concluding that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the appellant.
Lesson Learnt
A conviction cannot rest on dying declarations that are inconsistent, poorly corroborated, or procedurally suspect. Courts must scrutinise each declaration on its own merits and require independent supporting evidence before treating an accusation made by a dying person as conclusive proof of guilt.