Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, RAKESH KAINTHLA, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Surjeet Singh and Others – Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 4039 of 2013
Decided On : 07-05-2024
Acquittal - Murder - IPC 302, 201, 34 - The judgment discusses the interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the admissibility of the accused's statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The court emphasizes the need for independent evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the crime and the inadmissibility of the accused's statement as the sole basis for conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The deceased's body was found with multiple injuries, and the accused were charged based on suspicion.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution failed to establish that the deceased had visited the house of the accused, and the evidence did not connect the accused with the commission of the crime. The court held that the recovery of the shirt and other items was not sufficient to convict the accused. The accused were acquitted of the offences with which they were charged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for independent evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. It highlighted the inadmissibility of the accused's statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as the sole basis for conviction and the requirement for the prosecution to prove the connection of recovered items with the commission of the offence independently.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.03.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences, with which they were charged. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was asserted that Up-Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Ladoli informed the police telephonically on 20.03.2011 that a dead body was lying at Panjoa Chowk. Police recorded Entry No. 12A (Ext. PW-17/A) in the police station and directed ASI-Ram Swaroop (PW-23), Constable Ashwani Kumar, HHC Manjeet Singh, HHC Gian Chand and HHC Ashok Raj to verify the correctness of the information. ASI-Ram Swaroop and other police officials went to the spot and found the naked dead body of some unknown person lying on the grass. He took the photographs (Ext. PW-10/A and PW-10/B) and prepared the inquest report (Ext. PW-4/A). He filed an application (Ext. PW-11/B) for conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body. Dr Ravinder Mohan (PW-11) conducted the post-mortem examination and found multiple injuries on the body. In his opinion, the cause of death was a fracture of the frontal bone above the left eyebrow. He issued the post-mortem report (Ext. PW-11/A). He preserved finger pulps bilateral hands, teeth and hairs for DNA profiling. He also preserved the viscera of the deceased. He handed over all the articles to the police official accompanying the body. ASI-Ram Swaroop prepared the site plans (Ext. PW-21/B and Ext. PW-21/C) and handed over the post-mortem report to the SHO. The head injuries suffered by the deceased showed that the death was caused by beating; hence, FIR (Ext. PW-21/A) was registered at the police station. Inspector Gurdeep Singh (PW-21) conducted the investigation. He made inquiries in the neighbourhood and recorded the statements of Man Bhari (PW-5) and her husband Harjeet Singh (PW-9). He found from their statements that the death was caused in the house of Surjeet Singh. He went to the house of Surjeet Singh and found a trolley in the courtyard. The trolley was moved and blood stains were found on the ground. Surjeet Singh disclosed on inquiry that one person had demanded water during the intervening night of 19/20.03.2011 by saying Baba Nanak Pani Pilao (Baba Nanak serve water). He lifted the blood stains from the courtyard with the help of a piece of cloth. These were put in an empty matchbox and the matchbox was sealed in a cloth parcel with three impressions of seal ‘A’. The matchbox was seized vide memo (Ext. PW-6/A). Accused-Surjeet Singh produced three sticks (Ext. P1 to P3), which were put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with seal ‘A’. It was seized vide memo (Ext. PW-6/E). Sample seal (Ext. PW-6/F) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. T-shirt (Ext. P5) and half pants (Ext. P6) were also recovered, which were put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with seal ‘A’. It was seized vide memo (Ext. PW-6/G). A site plan of the place of recovery (Ext. PW-21/B) was prepared. Accused Surjeet Singh made a disclosure statement (Ext. PW-6/H) that he could get the shirt recovered. He recovered one shirt from a distance of 300 meters from his house lying on a barbed wire. The shirt was put in a cloth parcel and the parcel was sealed with seal ‘T’. The parcel was seized vide memo Ext. PW-6/J. The site plan of the place of the recovery of the shirt (Ext. PW-21/C) was prepared. He also obtained the call details record, which showed that Raj Kumar and Satish Kumar had talked to each other. A team of forensic experts was called to the spot. Surinder Kumar Pal (PW-2
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
An oral dying declaration must be trustworthy and free from blemish to form the basis of conviction. Recovery of evidence must comply with the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The pros....
Evidence must establish all circumstances consistent with the accused's guilt, with no reasonable hypothesis of innocence possible, especially in cases of circumstantial evidence.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and conclusive chain of evidence that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is ....
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring all circumstantial evidence to exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
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
