Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.472 of 2022
Decided on 2.1.2024
For the Appellant:Mr. Karan Kapoor, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. A.G.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – No conviction can be recorded on assumption.
(2) Absence of motive may not be a determinative factor, yet it is an important link to complete chain of circumstance.
Headnote:
(A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts – Appearance of serious doubt in prosecution case only helps case of accused – More serious the offence, more arduous is the duty cast upon prosecution to discharge its burden strictly in accordance with law – In absence of direct evidence, circumstances relied upon by prosecution have to satisfy same standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubts – Once this barrier is successfully crossed, it is to be shown that all circumstances form a complete chain of facts suggesting only one hypothesis about guilt of accused. (Para 17)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – No conviction can be recorded on assumption – Prosecution has to discharge its burden by proving guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and for such purposes, it has to prove fact in issue on the basis of relevant and admissible evidence – Merely, because police get knowledge about culprit either from illegal confession extracted from him or from any other source will not absolve prosecution from its duty to prove guilt of accused in accordance with law – In instant case, prosecution has also failed to attribute and prove any motive to appellant for commission of crime in question – Merely finding of a cap belonging to appellant near place where dead body was found cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that it was appellant alone who could have committed crime and none else as no other circumstance has been proved against – Though, absence of motive may not be a determinative factor, yet it is an important link to complete chain of circumstance, which is wholly missing in present case – Appellant acquitted of all charges by extending him benefit of doubt. (Paras 21, 22, 29, 30 and 31)
Result: Appeal allowed. Appellant acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Satyen Vaidya, J.—By way of instant appeal, the appellant has assailed judgment dated 11.01.2018 and sentence order dated 16.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions JudgeI, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.14NL/7 of 2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/. In case of failure to pay fine amount, the appellant has further been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 20.04. 2013 at about 1.30 P.M., Madho Ram Mehta (PW1), President Gram Panchayat Madhala, noticed a human dead body lying in a rivulet at place Sansiwala within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. PW1 was also accompanied by another person named Ram Niranjan at the relevant time. He telephonically informed Police Station Baddi. Police arrived at the spot and found an unidentified dead body between the stones/boulders in the bed of rivulet. Injuries were found on the back and front side of the head of the body, which appeared to have been caused with stone/boulder. Blood stained boulder and pieces of stones were also found near the spot. On search of the body one handkerchief, an iron nut, a bundle of biddies and black coloured ‘chappals’ (slippers) were found besides the clothes worn by the deceased.
3. Police took into possession handkerchief, iron nut, bundle of biddies and black coloured chappals sealed them in cloth parcel. Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/B was prepared. Blood stained soil, was collected from the spot besides the controlled sample of soil. Both were sealed in a cloth parcel vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. Two blood stained boulders were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F and sealed in a cloth parcel. Photographs Ex.PW1/G1 to Ex.PW1/G5 of the spot were clicked on the spot. Inquest papers Ex.PW25/A were prepared and body was sent for postmortem examination.
4. The police also recovered a black coloured Cap from a distance of about 150 meters from the place where the body was lying. On inspection, some hair were found stuck inside the cap. The cap and hair were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H after placing the same in a sealed packet.
5. On 23.04.2013, the police detained the appellant. On 25.04.2013, the father of the appellant produced before the Police those clothes of appellant which he had worn on 20.04.2013. As per the father of the appellant, the appellant had changed the said clothes at home, which were subsequently washed by the mother of the appellant. The clothes were having some stains. Kamlesh Sahu, the son of the deceased identified the same clothes to have been worn by the appellant on 19.04.2013. According to Kamlesh Sahu, he had seen the appellant and the deceased together on 19.04.2013 and at that time the appellant was wearing the same clothes. The clothes so produced were taken into possession by police vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/K after placing them in a sealed cloth parcel.
6. On 25.04.2013, the police recorded the statement of appellant to the effect that he could get recovered wallet of the deceased which he had thrown while leaving the spot. Statement Ex.PW1/M was recorded in presence of PW1 Madho Ram and Kamlesh Kumar Sahu. Thereafter the accused/appellant led the police party to a place in the rivulet and got recovered the wallet of the deceased in presence of witnesses PW1 Madho Ram, Kamlesh Sahu and Rajesh Sahu. The recovery proceedings were recorded and the wallet was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/P.
7. On 26.04.2013, another statement was suffered by the appellant, whereby he had disclosed to get recovered the broken mobile phone of deceased. Statement Ex.PW21/A was recorded by the police in presence of witnesses Kamal Kumar (PW21), Kamlesh Sahu and Rajesh Sahu. On the same day, the broken mobile phone
