Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 242
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJIV SHARMA, KULDIP SINGH, JJ.
DINESH AND OTHERS - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 1027, 1120 of 2010, 211 of 2011
Decided on : 08-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Sudhir Sharma, Adv., Ram Krishan Rana, Adv., Puja Chopra, Adv., Tapan Kumar Yadav, Adv., Vishal Garg, Adv.
The prosecution must conclusively prove the motive attributed to the accused, and recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused must be voluntary and not made after sustained interrogation. The circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation cannot be the sole basis of conviction, and suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction - Indian Penal Code - [MURDER] - [Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC] - [302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC] - The court found that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the motive attributed to the appellants. The court also noted that the recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused was not voluntary and was made after sustained interrogation, rendering it inadmissible. The court further highlighted that the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation cannot be the sole basis of conviction, and suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case was that the appellants were involved in the murder of Naresh @ Lambu. The deceased's body was found in a forest, and the prosecution alleged that the appellants had illicit relations with the deceased's wife and conspired to eliminate him. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution attributed the motive to the appellants' illicit relations with the deceased's wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the motive attributed to the appellants. The recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused was not voluntary and was made after sustained interrogation, rendering it inadmissible. The court also highlighted that the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation cannot be the sole basis of conviction, and suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the appellants' guilt, the admissibility of the recovery of incriminating material, and the reliance on the circumstance of last seen together as the sole basis of conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the motive attributed to the appellants and that the recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused was not voluntary and was made after sustained interrogation, rendering it inadmissible. The court further emphasized that the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation cannot be the sole basis of conviction, and suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted. The court highlighted that the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation cannot be the sole basis of conviction, and suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof.
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid three appeals, therefore these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These three appeals are instituted against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2010 and 08.10.2010 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Sessions Case No.33 of 2008 whereby the appellants, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'), have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under Section
Sentence
302/34 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
201/34 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.
120-B IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that Ram Kumar son of Pahlu Ram informed the police on 03.09.2008 that he was agriculturist by profession. On 03.09.2008 at about 11.00 A.M., he was informed that a dead body was lying in the forest of his village. Thereafter he along with some people of the village had gone to the forest and noticed that a dead body of unknown person was lying and a rope was found wrapped around his neck. The legs of the deceased were found burnt. Two plastic glasses, one bottle of English liquor marka ACP and one soft drink bottle were lying near the dead body. The person was murdered by unknown persons by strangulation and burning. An FIR under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34 IPC was registered in police station Jatusana against unknown persons. Initially the investigation of the case was carried out by Inspector Ram Kumar. The autopsy of the dead body was got conducted from the Civil Hospital, Rewari. The dead body was identified by Mahender Kumar and Virender Singh. Two plastic glasses, one bottle (Dew) and one English liquor bottle marka ACP lying near the dead body of the deceased, were taken into possession. Kulwant Singh ASI Incharge, Police Post No.2, Ambala City, arrested accused Ombir Singh @ Neetu in case FIR No.232 dated 23.08.2008 under Sections 363, 366, 344, 506 IPC, Police Station City Ambala. He made a disclosure statement to the effect that his friend Om Parkash had illicit relation with wife of deceased Lambu resident of Kurahwata. Om Parkash had asked him to finish Lambu. He discussed the matter with his friends Govind, Dinesh and Mukesh. They all demanded Supari (contract killing amount) of Rs.1 lac from Om Parkash for killing Lambu. Om Parkash agreed. All four had gone to Mahendergarh in the black Esteem car of Sandeep. The car was being driven by accused Dinesh. Om Parkash gave them Rs.1 lac. At about 11.00 A.M. Om Parkash on the pretext of showing the land to them, sent Lambu in their car. They all four brought Lambu near forest of Kanina. Lambu was strangulated with chadar (bed sheet). Thereafter production warrant of Ombir Singh @ Neetu was obtained. Mobile phone was recovered. Accused Dinesh, Mukesh and Govind were also arrested. They got the place of occurrence demarcated on 10.09.2008. Accused Govind also got recovered one pistol, 22 live cartridges, one empty cartridge, arm licence, as per his disclosure statement. Accused Dinesh and Mukesh as per their disclosure statements, got recovered Rs.20,000/- each. Govind also got recovered Rs.30,000/-. The investigation was completed
