Back
2002(7) Supreme 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ.
Ravinder Parkash and Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2001
Decided on 4-10-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : U.U. Lalit, Ajay Siwach and S.K. Sabharwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent : J.P. Dhanda, Mrs. Raj Rani Dhanda and Sunder Khatri, Advocates.
Held : If we examine the evidence of PW 2 we find that in all probability this witness could not have been an eye-witness who has actually seen the appellants taking away the deceased on 14.4.1993. (Para 8)
On review of evidence held : Thus it is seen that PW 2 has not supported the prosecution case that she lodged a complaint on 17.4.1993 about her missing husband. Then again we notice contradictions in her evidence as to her approaching the police on 18.4.1993. Though she states that after identifying the dead body she went to the Police Station on 18.4.1993. PW 9 the Investigating Officer says that PW 2 never came to the Police Station on 18.4.1993, on the contrary it is he who went to her house and recorded her statement. Why then PW 2 is making this incorrect statement? (Para 8)
From the above discussion of the evidence of PW 2, we find that PW 2 has not come out with the true version of the case and the courts below have not examined these discrepancies, improvements and improbabilities in her evidence while accepting the same. (Para 8)
Held further : If this witness had actually seen the deceased going with the appellants on 14.3.1993 and thereafter when he had come to know that Chander Has was missing since then, in the normal course, one would have expected this witness to inform the relatives of Chander Has about the same, his failure to do so in spite of the fact that he was in the know of the fact that the relationship between the appellants and Chander Has was not cordial makes his evidence suspicious, hence, it is not safe to rely upon him, without any corroboration. Having disbelieved the evidence of PW 2, we find no other corroboration in support of the evidence of PW 5. (Para 9)
The prosecution has not explained how PWs 2 and 8 came to know on 17.4.1993 itself about PW 5 having seen the deceased in the company of the appellants, when PW 5 himself specifically states that he had not told this to anybody except to the police which is on 18.4.1993. In this background we find it difficult to accept the evidence of this witness also. (Para 9)
Held consequently : Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the prosecution case as to the complaint of 17.4.1993 which cannot be believed. (Para 10)
From the discussion made herein above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the dead body found by the Police on 18.4.1993 was that of missing Chander Has. (Para 13)
Held finally : We have found that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4 and the basis for the reasons given by us though available on record have not been considered by the trial court. So far as the High Court is concerned, we need not give any additional reasons for differing from the same because the impugned judgment of the High Court is only a summary of the judgment of the trial court. For the reasons stated above, we find that the prosecution case, which is purely based on circumstantial evidence, has not been established beyond all reasonable doubts. Once we discard the evidence of the prosecution in regard to its theory of "last seen together", identification of the dead body, and filing of the complaint on 17.4.1993, the links in the chain of circumstances get broken, hence, the chain of circumstances will not be complete. Then assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecution has been able to establish the recovery of the weapon, which in any case had no blood stains on it, and the motorcycle, by themselves would not complete that chain so as to be consistent with no other hypothesis, except the guilt of the accused. Therefore, we find it unsafe to rely upon the prosecution case. For the reasons stated above, this appeal succeeds. We set aside the judgment and conviction imposed on the appellants by the courts below and direct that the appellants be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
JUDGMENT
Santosh Hegde, J.-The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and conviction imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in his judgment dated 6.11.1995 made in Sessions Case No. 93/93 as confirmed by the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh made in Crl. Appeal No. 590-DB/95 dated 18.1.2001.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case against the appellants is:
The deceased Chander Has and the appellants were related. They had some inter-se dispute in regard to some property, therefore, the prosecution has alleged that the appellants on 14.4.1993 took away the deceased from his house in the presence of his wife Birmati examined before the trial Court as PW 2. Ever since then the Chander Has was not seen alive. It is stated that on 17.4.1993 said PW 2 along with a relative of Chander Has, namely, Dharambir Singh PW 8 went to the Police Station at Sampla and submitted a written application to the SHO in regard to missing of the said Chander Has. It is the further case of the prosecution that though the SHO of the said Station by name Chand Mohammad, ASI recorded a complaint and registered the same in the daily diary of the Station did not take up any investigation as the said complaint did not make out any cognizable offence. On 18.4.1993 another police officer of the said Station by name Gian Singh PW 9 on seeing the said complaint of PWs 2 and 8 took up investigation and in that process he went near the village called Khalawar where he was met by one Attar Singh, ex-Sarpanch of the village who told him that a dead body of a young man had been found under some Kikar trees at a nearby place. On getting this information the said investigating officer (PW 9) proceeded to the said place along with two relatives of Chander Has by name Raghbir (PW 3) and Jai Bhagwan (PW 4). On reaching the said place they saw a dead body which was in a highly decomposed state. The same was identified by PWs 2 and 4 as that of their relative Chander Has. The prosecution then alleges that on the body being identified and completing the inquest at the place where the body was found the same was sent for post mortem examination. It is relevant to note here that at the time of the inquest of the dead body, no external injuries were noticed. Thereafter PW 9 recorded the statements of PWs 3 and 4 at the spot where the body was found and recorded the statement of PW 2 at her house as also of one Kehar Singh (PW 5) who according to prosecution has seen the deceased in the company of the appellants in the bazaar when he was walking there on the evening of 14.4.1993. The prosecution then states on getting the said information PW 4 searched for accused persons and was unable to arrest them immediately. From the material on record, it seems that appellant No. 1 was arrested on 19.4.1993 whereas appellant No. 2 who was then serving in the Army, was found in Sikkim at the place where he was posted. He was arrested from there on 14.6.1993. In the meanwhile, the investigating agency on a statement allegedly made by the appellant No. 1 recovered a sharp-edged weapon Gaiti as also a motorcycle which the prosecution alleges was used by the appellants in taking away the deceased.
3. On receipt of the post mortem report from the doctor (PW 7), who had opined that the deceased had died a homicidal death, having suffered stab injuries which could have been caused by a weapon like Gaiti recovered from appellant No. 1, the appellants were charged for the murder of Chander Has and were tried as stated above.
4. The defence of the appellant before the Sessions Court was one of complete denial.
5. The Sessions Court on a consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established from the evidence of PW 2 and PW 5 that the appellants had taken away the deceased from his house on 14.4.1993 and thereafter he was never seen alive. It also accepted the prosecution case that on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
