Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
YOGESH – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2017
With
ANUJ – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2017
With
PARDEEP – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1308 OF 2017
Decided on : 06-04-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/120-B/34, 364-A and 376 – Rape and murder – Kidnapping and conspiracy – Common intention – Life sentence – Evidence on record discloses that out of three witnesses, who were stated to be eye-witnesses, two witnesses turned hostile and did not support case of prosecution – Both these witnesses are close relations of victim and there is nothing on record to indicate that they were either put under any pressure or that there was any element of suspicion – Both these witnesses were categorical that persons who kidnapped victim were not before Court in capacity as accused – All three witnesses who were claimed to be eye-witnesses to occurrence and on whose testimonies, reliance was placed by prosecution, are of no help – Though post-mortem report discloses that victim was sexually assaulted, FSL Report on record does not establish any connection of accused with sexual assault on deceased victim – Dead body of victim was found lying in an open field – Record is again not clear as to when present appellants were arrested and how and in what manner their disclosure statements led to recovery of dead body – Recovery of clothing apparel as well as Tiffin box etc. belonging to victim, by themselves, in absence of any other material evidence on record pointing towards guilt of accused, cannot be termed sufficient to hold that case was proved beyond reasonable doubt – Not only those circumstances are not conclusive in nature but they also do not form a cogent and consistent chain so as to exclude every other hypothesis except guilt of appellants – Case of prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt – Orders of conviction and sentence recorded against each appellants set aside. (Paras 20, 21, 24, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 13.07.2010 found that (a) charge under Section 302/120-B/34 IPC was proved against the accused Yogesh, Sumit, Pardeep and Anuj, (b) while the charges under Sections 364-A and 376 IPC were not proved against them (c) rest of the accused were not found guilty of any of the charges levelled against them and hence were acquitted. The trial court awarded sentence of life imprisonment to the convicted accused and imposed sentence of fine of Rs.20,000/- in default whereof the convicted accused were directed to undergo further imprisonment for two years. All the appeals were considered and disposed of by the High Court by its judgment, which is presently under challenge.
Findings of Court:
The statement given by witness in his cross-examination further discloses that he was sitting inside the house when the incident had occurred and that the shouts of the children and other passers-by had attracted his attention whereafter the witness came out of the house. In the circumstances, it is extremely difficult to accept PW10 to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. The observations made by the High Court while placing reliance on his version, in our view, were totally incorrect.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
These appeals arise out of the common judgment and final order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeals No.D-719-DB of 2010, D-713-DB of 2010 and D-735-DB of 2010.
2. Eight persons, namely, Diwan Singh, Anuj, Sumit, Pardeep, Yogesh, Satbir, Parveen and Abhishek were tried in Sessions Case No.6 of 2004/2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, Haryana, in connection with crime registered pursuant to FIR No. 188 dated 18.08.2004 with Police Station City, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302/364-A/376/216 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short).
3. The crime was registered pursuant to the reporting (Ex.P.11) made by one Manoj Kumar (later examined as PW10 in the trial). The reporting made at 5.45 pm on 18.08.2004 was to the following effect:-
It is submitted that I am Manoj Kumar s/o Rameshwar Singh resident of House No. 650, sector -6. Today i.e. on 18/08/2004 (at noon) about 12.45 P.M my children, who use to study in B.S.M. Public school, were coming back to house, by bus after closing of their school, as my son Neeraj 10 year and daughter xxx1[ Name of the victim is with held] 7 years got off from bus near Kothi No.622. then two boys came there on one red colour motor cycle, one of them asked to come here, upon which my daughter xxx went to near motor cycle then the boy sitting on motor cycle forcibly lifted baby and fled away toward the Primary school, while getting her sit in between them on motor cycle, number of motor cycle could not be seen. Hearing the alarm of children we tried to stop them but they fled away, while pushing us. Both of them were of young age. Out of them its driver had worn black pant, brown shirt and a helmet on his head. Till now we remained in search of girl, legal action be taken."
4. During the course of investigation, a raid was conducted at the house of accused Diwan Singh, who allegedly disclosed that his son Anuj along with three others had kidnapped the victim and as pressure of the investigation by the police was mounting, the victim was murdered and her dead-body was thrown in the fields of village Paparwat.
5. In the intervening night of 19.08.2004 and 20.08.2004, the body of the deceased was recovered.
6. It is not clear as to when exactly the accused were arrested but it is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the disclosure statements made by these appellants, the place where the dead body of the victim was lying could be located, and their disclosure statements led to the recovery of certain items like clothing, tiffin box etc. belonging to the victim.
7. The dead body of the victim was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. P.K. Paliwal (later examined as PW4 in the trial). Exhibit P6 -Post-Mortem Report stated as under:-
- Scalp hair black 8-10 cm. long and can be peeled off as slight traction.
- Eggs of flies present all over the face and chest.
- Face, chest, abdomen distended.
- Marbling effect present all over the body.
- P.M. blisters present at places.
- External Genitalia swollen.
- Face swollen; Eyes swollen, mouth open, lips apart upper neck visible, tongue protruding under about 1.5 cm.
- Length of body was 31/2
- Body emitting foul smell.
- Facel matter passed off.
- Hypostasis over the back.
Injuries:-
(i) There was a ligature mark in anterior part of neck, from 1.5 cm. below the left angle of mandible to right mandible. It is 1 cm. in width.
(ii) There were contusion marks on both side of neck, 5cm. below the angle of mandible on right side and 4.5 cm. below the left side measuring 7x3 cm. and 5x3 cm. Respectively.
On section both the injurious were showing ecchymosis in underlying tissues.
(iii) There were multiple contusions of size 0.5 x 0.5 to 1.5 cm. over the lips angles of mouth and chin region, ecchymosis was seen.
(iv) The labia were swollen and inf
Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where case of prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and motive in murder cases; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a conclusive chain consistent with the accused's guilt; suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal convictions.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the testimonies of witnesses, especially in child rape cases, and the need for proper legal protection for minor victims.
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
