State of Himachal Pradesh vs Chaman Lal; 2026 INSC 57 - Evidence Act - Dying Declaration - Appeal Against Acquittal - Hostile Witness - Motive
You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:
Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 32 - A dying declaration need not be made in expectation of immediate death; that a conviction under Section 302 IPC can rest solely on a dying declaration if it is found to be voluntary, truthful and reliable; and that corroboration is not a rule of law but one of prudence. (Para 16) - The law does not prescribe any rigid form for recording a dying declaration. So long as the Court is satisfied that the declaration is voluntary, truthful and reliable, hyper-technical objections cannot form the basis for its rejection. (Para 18.3) No absolute proposition that a dying declaration must invariably be discarded in the absence of corroboration. Each case must necessarily turn on its own facts. (Para 25)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378,386- Where a judgment of acquittal is found to be manifestly erroneous, perverse, or founded on a misreading of evidence or incorrect application of law, this Court would be justified to set aside the acquittal and record a conviction, albeit exercising such power with circumspection and in exceptional circumstances. (Para 13)
Criminal Trial - Hostile Witness -The testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon only to the extent it is corroborated by other reliable evidence. (Para 20) Motive- Motive assumes significance, primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible and trustworthy dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case. (Para 23)
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: State of Himachal Pradesh vs Chaman Lal.
- Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 57.
- Coram: B.V. Nagarathna, J. and R. Mahadevan, J.
- Judgment date: January 15, 2026.
Caselaws and Citations
- Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 2016 SC 1160; (2016) 4 SCC 357.
- Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and another etc., (2022) 3 SCC 471.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 537.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ajmal Beg Etc., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2801.
- State of U.P. v. Sahai, (1982) 1 SCC 352; AIR 1981 SC 1442.
- Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham, AIR 1979 SC 1284.
- State of Haryana v. Lakhbir Singh, 1990 CrLJ 2274 (SC).
- State of Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh, AIR 1984 SC 207.
- State of U.P. v. Shanker, AIR 1981 SC 879.
- State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh, AIR 1980 SC 184.
- State of U.P. v. Ranjha Ram, AIR 1986 SC 1959.
- State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, AIR 1981 SC 1675.
- Gurbachan v. Satpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 209.
- State of U.P. v. Pheru Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1205.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pussu, 1983 AIR 867 (SC).
- Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 552.
- Paniben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 1817; 1992 SCC OnLine SC 355.
- Munnu Raja v. State of M.P., (1976) 3 SCC 104.
- State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC 552.
- K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (1976) 3 SCC 618.
- Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P., (1974) 4 SCC 264.
- Kake Singh v. State of M.P., 1981 Supp SCC 25.
- Ram Manorath v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 654.
- State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu, 1980 Supp SCC 455.
- Surajdeo Oza v. State of Bihar, 1980 Supp SCC 769.
- Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P., 1988 Supp SCC 152.
- State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan, (1989) 3 SCC 390.
- Laxman v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 6 SCC 710.
- State of U.P. v. Veerpal, (2022) 4 SCC 741.
- Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 327.
- Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1669.
- State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, (2002) 2 SCC 426.
- Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2009) 16 SCC 487.
- Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar, (2022) 11 SCC 800.
- Ramaniklal Gokaldas v. State of Gujarat, (1976) 1 SCC 6.
- Nadodi Jayaraman v. State of T.N., 1992 Supp (3) SCC 161.
- Banwari Ram v. State of U.P., (1998) 9 SCC 3.
- State of M.P. & Others v. Paltan Mallah & Others, (2005) 3 SCC 169.
- Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim & Others, (2020) 11 SCC 174.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bogam Chandraiah and another, (1986) 3 SCC 637.
- Dasin Bai @ Shanti Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 107.
- Purshottam Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine SC 6.
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 161, 207, 313; committal and sessions trial provisions.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 32(1) (dying declaration).
- Constitution of India: Article 136 (Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction).
