Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 344

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Dharambir @ Dharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1858 of 2009
Decided on : 16-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishi Malhotra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Deepak Thukral, A.A.G. Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Extra-judicial confession by its very nature is a weak piece of evidence – It may be used as a corroborative piece of evidence in tandem with substantive evidence.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act,1872 – Section 25 – Murder – Life sentence – Suspicion of illicit relations – Extra-judicial confession by its very nature is a weak piece of evidence – It may be used as a corroborative piece of evidence in tandem with substantive evidence – Both star prosecution witnesses fall within category of wholly unreliable witnesses and it would be unsafe to place reliance on their evidence so as to affirm guilt of accused appellant – There is no independent corroboration – No other evidence was led by prosecution for bringing home charge – Prosecution failed to bring home charge and establish guilt of accused appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned Judgments quashed and set aside and appellant acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. (Paras 26, 35 to 40)
Facts of the case:
Vide judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1999, Sessions Judge, Bhiwani convicted appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and by an order of sentencing dated 10th May, 1999 awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months to appellant.
Findings of Court:
Conviction of appellant as recorded by trial Court vide judgment and order dated 03rd May, 1999 and affirmed by High Court vide judgment dated 21st April, 2008 cannot be sustained and appellant deserves to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Mehta, J.

1. Vide judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1999, learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and by an order of sentencing dated 10th May, 1999 awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months to the appellant.

2. The appellant challenged the said judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 259-DB of 1999 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Division Bench rejected the appeal vide judgment dated 21st April, 2008 and affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

Brief Facts: -

3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 5th June, 1998, at around 08:30 a.m., deceased Karambir, his brother Krishan Kumar (PW-5), Ravinder (PW-6) and Mahender (PW-7) along with two acquaintances (Mahender and Suresh) had gone to Prabhat Cinema, Bhiwani. At about 11:30 a.m., the accused appellant who was also present there, thrust a knife in the chest of Karambir causing his instantaneous death and escaped leaving the knife behind. The motive attributed to the accused appellant for committing the offence was that he bore a suspicion in his mind that deceased Karambir was involved in illicit relations with his wife.

4. Rohtas Singh (PW-11) posted as Inspector/SHO, Police Station City Bhiwani, received a telephonic message from Raj Kumar (PW-9), Manager of Prabhat Cinema, regarding the incident and acting in furtherance thereof, he along with other police personnel reached the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of first informant-Krishan Kumar (Exhibit-PF) at 01:30 p.m., which led to the registration of FIR No. 309 of 1998 at Police Station City Bhiwani for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

5. The requisite investigation was undertaken by Rohtas Singh (PW-11) Investigating Officer, who inspected the place of occurrence; prepared the inquest report; seized a knife lying near the dead body; prepared the site plan; recorded the statements of witnesses and forwarded the dead body of Karambir to the Medical Jurist for conducting the post mortem. The Medical Jurist-Dr. Hemant Singh (PW-1) carried out autopsy upon the dead body of Karambir taking note of two incised wounds, one in the epigastric region of the upper abdomen and other on the left forearm of the deceased. The Medical Jurist (PW-1) issued a Post Mortem Report (Ex.-PA) opining that the cause of death of the deceased was shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injury No.1 inflicted to the vital organs which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

6. The accused appellant was arrested on 7th June, 1998 and chargesheet was filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in the Court of the concerned Magistrate. The case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani where charge was framed against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, who denied the same and claimed trial.

7. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses so as to prove its case. The prosecution case was primarily based on the testimonies of Krishan Kumar (PW-5), the first informant, being the brother of the deceased and Ram Kumar (PW-8) who claimed that the accused had made an extra judicial confession before him.

8. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied the same and claimed to be innocent. One Piare Lal was examined as DW-1.

9. Vide judgment dated 3rd May, 1999, the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused appellant and sentenced him as above. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of convictio