Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, Kuldeep Tiwari, JJ.
State of Haryana - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Vinod - Respondent - Respondent
CRA-D-54-DB of 2008
Decided On : 02-05-2023
Ms. Aarushi Garg, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Bains, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the appellants (in CRA-D-909-DB-2007&CRR-17-2008).
Mr. P.P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sukesh Kumar Jindal, Advocates for the respondent (in CRA-D-54-DB-2008).
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 34 - Criminal responsibility and evidentiary standards in murder cases - The acquittal of the respondent was upheld due to lack of substantive evidence linking him to the crime, while the appellants were acquitted on the grounds of benefit of doubt stemming from weak circumstantial evidence and lack of corroboration from the forensic findings. The court emphasized the need for a conclusive chain of evidence and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. (Paras 1, 11, 32, 48, 49)
Facts of the case:
The case revolved around the murder of a young boy, Tirlok Chand, allegedly committed by the accused who were charged with conspiracy to kill for theft of livestock. The prosecution's case was largely based on circumstantial evidence, including witness statements and forensic analysis, which ultimately failed to establish a clear link to the crime. (Paras 2, 9, 32)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was set aside due to insufficient and inconclusive evidence, including unreliable witness testimony and the lack of physical evidence connecting the accused to the murder. The court found that the recovery of items attributed to the accused did not prove their involvement beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 48, 49)
Issues: The main issues involved assessing the reliability of circumstantial evidence and the implications of witness testimonies in light of evidentiary challenges, as well as the standards for overturning an acquittal. (Paras 11, 33)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated principles regarding the necessity of establishing every link in the circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that mere suspicion or possibilities cannot ground a conviction. The judgments cited underscored the need for compelling reasons to overturn acquittals based on the foundational presumption of innocence. (Paras 20, 46)
Result: Appeals by the accused were allowed, leading to their acquittal, with the prosecution's and complainant's appeals against the acquittal of another accused dismissed for lack of merit.
Key Points: - The court analyzes circumstantial evidence using Sharad Birdhichand Sarda five-prong test for guilt beyond reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Appellate court may overturn an acquittal only for substantial and compelling reasons; double presumption of innocence favors upholding acquittal (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Forensic footprint evidence is considered weak and not determinative; foot impression science not fully reliable, especially when samples aren’t taken before a Magistrate (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Recoveries and disclosures under Section 27/25/26/Evidence Act are scrutinized; inconsistent or delayed recoveries weaken link to crime (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court’s acquittal of Vinod is upheld due to lack of conclusive evidence, and the appellate court acquires caution in relying solely on FSL footprint matches to overturn acquittal (!) (!) (!) . - Convictions of Ramesh and Krishan are set aside due to insufficient corroboration, unreliable recoveries, and lack of direct link to crime (!) (!) . - Last seen evidence is scrutinized and deemed unreliable when witness is introduced later to complete chain of circumstances (!) (!) (!) . - Motive analysis found lacking; collection of canter driver and other corroboration missing (!) . - Overall conclusion: acquittals maintained for Vinod; Ramesh and Krishan acquitted; cases regarding recoveries and forensic links critically evaluated (!) (!) (!) .
What is the standard for convicting on circumstantial evidence and how does it apply to the links in this case?
What are the principles governing an appellate review of acquittals and when can an acquittal be overturned?
What are the evidentiary limitations and pitfalls in relying on forensic footprint analysis and recoveries to sustain a conviction?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals against conviction and acquittal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution story foundation based on witness statement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. details of trial court proceedings and verdict. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. contentions of parties regarding evidence and testimony. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. analysis of circumstantial evidence and investigation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. forensic evidence and its implications. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. disclosures and recoveries made during investigation. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. last seen evidence and its validity. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. analysis of motive and evidence linking accused to crime. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. court findings on evidence and credibility. (Para 31 , 32) |
| 11. issues surrounding recovered evidence and confessions. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. conclusion regarding prosecution's burden of proof. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 13. evaluation of the acquittal of respondent vinod. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 14. principles related to evidence and appeal against acquittal. (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 15. final orders and conclusions by the court. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1. Since the facts and evidence, besides, the origination of all these cases is a common judgment, dated 06.07.2007, therefore they are being taken up together and disposed of accordingly.
2. Criminal appeal bearing No.CRA-D-909-DB-2007, has been preferred by the appellants/accused, namely, Ramesh and Krishan, against the verdict of conviction dated 06.07.2007, and, also against the order of sentence dated 07.07.2007, as became drawn by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, in case FIR No.372 dated 12.11.2004, registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’ for short), at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, whereby the following sentence became imposed upon them:-
| Offence under Section | Period | Fine | In Default |
| 302 of IPC | R.I. for life | Rs.50,000/- | Imprisonment for 1 year |
| 201 of IPC | R.I. for 3 years | Rs.10,000/- | Imprisonment for 3 months |
Both these sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
On the other hand, criminal appeal bearing No.CRA-D-54-DB-2008, and, criminal revision petition bearing No.CRR-17-2008, have been directed respectively at the instance of the State of Haryana, and, the complainant, thereby throwing a challenge to the verdict of acquittal, as made through verdict (supra), qua respondent/accused Vinod, from the charges, as became framed against him, vide the judgment (supra).
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The prosecution story is rooted in the statement of Bhim Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’), father of the deceased Tirlok Chand, which was recorded, on 12.11.2004, by S.I. Rohtash Singh. For ready reference, the relevant extract of the statement (supra) is reproduced as under:-
“Stated that I am resident of aforementioned address and I do work of goats and sheep. I have four daughters and three sons, out of whom, youngest is my son Tirlok Chand, aged about 14 years. On 11.11.04, at about 11 a.m., he went on bank of the river, with total 22 animals, i.e. 20 goats and 2 sheep, for grazing them. When he did not return home in evening, we searched him in the surroundings. While searching him, today on 12.11.04, at about 8 a.m., when we reached near Village Manana, we found the animals sitting under a tree in the fields. We left the animals at our house and thereafter, at about 6 o’clock, when I along with Ram Kumar s/o Mai Ram Balmiki, r/o Binjhol, and my son Ranbir, were going towards the western bank of the Delhi Parallel Western Yamuna Canal, in search of my son Tirlok Chand, then approx. two furlongs towards Siwah Bridge from Mehrana Bridge, we found blood on bank of the canal. When we searched in the nearby area, we found a plastic slipper of Tirlok Chand from the bushes nearby the bank of canal
