Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 666

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Ram Niwas - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2012
Decided On : 11-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) It will not be safe to base conviction solely on the basis of alleged extra-judicial confession made by appellant to witnesses.
(2) Accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a Court can convict.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Only incriminating circumstance, on which prosecution relies is recovery of ‘ash’ and ‘plastic can’ on memorandum of accused/appellant under Section 27 of Evidence Act – Prosecution version appears improbable that such an incident took place in an area surrounded by houses – Prosecution has also not examined any independent witness residing nearby so as to lend credence to prosecution’s version – It will not be safe to base conviction solely on the basis of alleged extra-judicial confession made by appellant to these witnesses – From post-mortem, it is also not established that death was homicidal – Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt – Prosecution has utterly failed to establish chain of events which can be said to exclusively lead to one and only conclusion, i.e., guilt of accused – In that view of matter, judgment and order of Sessions Judge and that of High Court are not sustainable – Judgment and order of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside. (Paras 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22)
(B) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – There has to be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability act must have been done by accused – Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency – Circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except one to be proved – Accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a Court can convict. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th March 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by accused/appellant Ram Niwas, which was filed challenging judgment and order dated 11th/12th January 2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Sonepat, thereby convicting appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11th/12th January 2005 of Sessions Judge, Sonepat and the judgment and order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th March 2009, dismissing the appeal of accused/appellant Ram Niwas are quashed and set aside. Accused/appellant Ram Niwas is acquitted of all the charges charged with. The bail bonds shall stand discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th March 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas, which was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11th/12th January 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus :

2.1 Deceased Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh (P.W.10), and the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) are brothers. Pale, son of Bhim Singh (P.W.10), was married to Sunita, daughter of Chander Singh and the sister of the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas. After the death of Pale, his wife Sunita along with her minor son went to her parental house in village Rewli. Deceased Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh (P.W.10), and complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) wanted Sunita to be married to Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh. As such, on 7th March 2003, all three of them had gone to the house of Chander Singh, father of the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas with the proposal of remarriage of Sunita with Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh.

2.2 It is the prosecution case that all three of them reached village Rewli and went to the house of Chander Singh, father of the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas at around 5.00 p.m. on 7th March 2003. At around 7.30 p.m., deceased Dalip Singh and accused/appellant-Ram Niwas started taking liquor and at that time the proposal of marrying Sunita with Rampal was mentioned. On such mention being made, accused/appellant-Ram Niwas got angry and started abusing deceased Dalip Singh. However, complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) intervened and pacified the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas. Thereafter, both of them after having their meals went to the first floor to sleep.

2.3 On the morning of 8th March 2003, at around 6.30 a.m., when the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) went to the drawing room of Chander Singh, deceased Dalip Singh was not seen there. They asked about the whereabouts of deceased Dalip Singh from the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas, who told them that he had gone for answering the call of nature. Both of them waited for deceased Dalip Singh for about half an hour, but he did not return. Therefore, they again asked the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas about the whereabouts of deceased Dalip Singh, but they did not receive any satisfactory reply.

2.4 It is further the prosecution case that after the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) came to the courtyard, they felt the smell of the burnt human body. The complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) again enquired from the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas about deceased Dalip Singh. Then the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas became nervous and replied that when deceased Dalip Singh had proposed to marry Sunita with his son Rampal then he had pressed the throat of deceased Dalip Singh and strangulated him to death. In order to destroy the evidence, the dead-body of the deceased Dalip Singh was burnt, but the same could not be burnt completely. The dead body of deceased Dalip Singh was concealed in Paraal (Paddy Fodder). Thereafter, the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) after removing the Paddy straw found the partially burnt dead body of deceased Dalip Singh wrapped in a piece of Plastic palli. Thereafter, the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) expressed their resentment towards the accused/appellant-Ram Niw