Ganga Ram vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3328

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL, RITU TAGORE, JJ.
Ganga Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CRM-A-285 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Shuchi Sodhi, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Acquittal of accused in murder case - Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, lacking conclusive circumstantial evidence - The trial Court found no established chain of evidence connecting accused to the crime. (Paras 17, 39)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - The accused abjured guilt and provided no evidence to support their claims. (Paras 16, 40)

(C) Circumstantial evidence - Requirements for linking accused to crime - The prosecution must conclusively establish chain of circumstances, which was not fulfilled in this case. (Paras 26)

Facts of the case:
The case involves the murder of Vikas alias Vicky, who was last seen with accused on the day he was killed, leading to suspicion against them. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including recovery of items and statements made by witnesses. (Paras 2-8, 18-19)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution's failure to establish a credible case against the accused led to their acquittal. The evidential linkages were found to be unsatisfactory. (Paras 39-41)

Issues: Main issues included whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish guilt and whether the Chain of Circumstances was adequate for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles governing circumstantial evidence, stating that mere suspicion cannot replace proof and that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof. (Paras 26, 39)

Result: Leave to appeal dismissed, maintaining the trial Court's decision of acquittal of the accused.

Table of Content
1. description of murder case events. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. details of investigation process. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. confessions and accomplices' involvement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. arrests and recoveries related to the crime. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. filing of charge-sheet. (Para 13 , 14)
6. trial process and evidentiary submissions. (Para 15 , 16)
7. reflections on insufficiency of evidence. (Para 17 , 19 , 39)
8. arguments challenging trial court's conclusions. (Para 20 , 21 , 23)
9. medical evidence confirming cause of death. (Para 24 , 25)
10. legal obligations of prosecution in circumstantial evidence. (Para 26 , 27)
11. analysis of witness credibility regarding 'last seen' theory. (Para 28 , 29)
12. doubts raised about the prosecution's case and motive. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 36 , 38)
13. final verdict and dismissal of appeal. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J.

Ganga Ram applicant-appellant (father of the deceased), seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 26.07.2018 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge Gurugram, in a case bearing FIR No.937 dated 09.10.2015 under Sections 302 , 34 IPC registered at P.S.Sadar, Gurugram, acquitting all the accused-respondents No.2 to 5 for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Facts are that the complainant, Rohit Kumar son of Ganga Ram, on 09.10.2015 met the police party headed by SI Ashok Kumar (Investigating Officer), present at Bakhtawar Chowk Gurugram on their routine patrol duty and recorded his statement Exh. PJ, stating that he is an auto-rickshaw driver and his elder brother Vikas alias Vicky (since deceased) was doing the job as a car cleaner at Residency Green, Sector 47, Gurugram for the last 20/25 days. On 08.10.2015 at about 11:30 a.m., his brother Vikas @ Vicky told him that he had to go to Police Station Sadar, Gurugram for police verification as residents of the society were asking for the same. Meanwhile, Dinesh a friend of the deceased, came home and they spoke with each other and after that both of them left for Police Station for getting the police verification done. But the deceased did not return home that night. On the next day i.e. on 09.10.2015, at about 10.30 a.m., the complainant heard from people of the locality about the dead body of a young boy lying at a vacant place behind the Cyber Park and cremation ground, village Jharsa, suggesting murder by someone.

3. The complainant further recorded that he, along with his friend Shaurab Saini, went behind the cremation ground and was shocked to see the dead body of his elder brother Vikas alias Vicky lying face down on stones. He saw a pool of blood near the dead body and noticed injury marks on the head, left eye, right side of mouth and stomach. The complainant also saw a belt around the neck of the deceased used for strangulation. Complainant further noticed that a broken bottle of Imperial Blue whiskey and four plastic glasses with one glass containing some liquor were also lying near the dead body. He also found some peanuts scattered on a piece of stone along with some Gutka packets and an empty bottle of water. The broken bottle and sharp-edged stones had bloodstains. The complainant expressed a suspicion that accused Dinesh with the help of his associates for an unknown motive, administered liquor to the deceased and murdered him. The complainant left his friend Shaurab Saini, near the dead body of his brother and went to police station to inform about the incident and met the police party on the way and got his statement (Exh. PJ) recorded.

4. SI Ashok Kumar (PW-22) made an endorsement Exh. P-74 on the complaint and sent C. Pradeep (PW-14) to the police station to record FIR and called crime team and dog squad on the spot. Based on the Tehrir Exh.PJ, FIR Exh.PA was registered by ASI Surinder Singh (PW-1) and made an endorsement Exh.PB on it. The investigation was entrusted to SI Ashok Kumar (PW-22).

5. During the investigation, on 09.10.