Tarun Sharma vs State of Haryana 2025 INSC 1139 - Evidence - Dying Declaration - Hostile Witness - Amicus Curiae Appointment

Indian Evidence Act 1872- Section 32 - Recording of time in a dying declaration is essential so as to correlate the statement with the medical condition of the injured at that point.- This omission is a serious laps - Without it, the Court cannot fairly assess whether the injured was in a fit state of mind or whether the statement was recorded contemporaneously or after undue delay. The absence of this foundational detail, therefore, casts a grave doubt on the authenticity of the dying declaration and seriously erodes its evidentiary worth. (Para 59) the satisfaction of the person recording the dying declaration is indispensable. (Para 56)

Criminal Trial - Appointment of Amicus Curiae- In criminal trials and appeals, especially those involving punishment of life imprisonment or capital sentence, the concerned Courts must not treat the appointment of an amicus curiae as an empty formality. Such counsel must be afforded sufficient time to peruse the record, meet the accused, and prepare the defence effectively. The principles of fair trial and effective representation are not procedural gimmicks but foundational guarantees of our criminal justice system, which cannot be compromised or breached - The hearing in a criminal trial or appeal must be an effective hearing. This necessarily presupposes not only the presence of counsel but also the grant of adequate time and opportunity for such counsel, whether engaged by the accused or appointed as an amicus curiae, to properly prepare and present the case. To appoint an amicus and proceed to hear the matter on the very same day, without affording sufficient time for preparation or consultation, renders the safeguard of effective legal representation to an empty formality and undermines the very essence of the right to fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India. (Para 38-39)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 165 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 -Section 168 - Court has duty to remain cognizant and not to act as a mute spectator in the course of trial. (Para 51)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Evidentiary value of a hostile witness - Though declared hostile, evidence of such witnesses cannot be discarded altogether. His deposition must be assessed with care to ascertain which portions, if any, can be separated and relied upon. (Para 47)

Case Info

Case Name and Neutral Citation

  • Case Name: Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana
  • Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1139

Coram (Judges)

  • Justice Vikram Nath
  • Justice Sandeep Mehta

Judgment Date

  • Date of Judgment: September 1, 2025

Caselaws and Citations Referred

  1. Chaluvegowda v. State(2012) 13 SCC 538
  2. Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam(2011) 4 SCC 729
  3. Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2019) 20 SCC 196
  4. C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.(2010) 9 SCC 567
  5. State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra(1996) 10 SCC 360 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1278
  6. Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra(2002) 7 SCC 543 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 112
  7. Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab(2006) 13 SCC 516
  8. K.P. Tamilmaran v. State2025 SCC OnLine SC 958
  9. Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi)(2023) 4 SCC 731
  10. Paulmeli v. State of T.N.(2014) 13 SCC 90
  11. Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P.(2012) 5 SCC 777
  12. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra(2002) 6 SCC 710
  13. Atbir v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)(2010) 9 SCC 1
  14. Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh(2024) 3 SCC 481
  15. Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v. State of Maharashtra(2018) 9 SCC 160 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 721

Statutes / Laws Referred

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
    • Section 302
    • Sections 323, 324, 506, 34
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
    • Section 374(2)
    • Section 313
    • Section 311
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872
    • Section 165
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
    • Section 168
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
    • Section 348
  • Constitution of India
    • Article 21