SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 3379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RITU BAHRI, MANISHA BATRA, JJ.
Priyavart & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL-D NO.1336-DB of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate, for appellants Nos. 1, 5 and 6.
Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, for appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 120-B - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1-B)(a) - Criminal conspiracy and murder - Accused convicted by trial court for conspiracy to kill and murder of the victim, but conviction reversed on appeal due to lack of direct evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence. (Paras 10, 32)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - Accused challenging conviction citing various deficiencies in prosecution's case, including lack of motive, reliance on inadmissible evidence, and insufficient evidence to establish conspiracy and guilt. (Paras 8, 32)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and conspiracy in connection with the death of a victim found with firearm injuries. The victim had previously aided a rival of the accused. The prosecution's case hinged on circumstantial evidence, including disclosure statements and call records. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The evidence presented by the prosecution lacked the required probative value to support the convictions due to gaps in circumstantial evidence and unreliability of key witnesses. (Paras 10, 32)

Issues: The critical issues were whether the prosecution established motive, whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to maintain a conviction, and whether key witness testimonies were credible. (Paras 18, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, ruling that unproven allegations and inadmissible evidence do not suffice for conviction. (Paras 32)

Result: Conviction reversed; appellants acquitted and ordered to be released from custody. (Paras 32)

Table of Content
1. summary of the criminal case and initial investigation details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. process and outcome of the trial proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. details of the arguments from the defense and prosecution. (Para 8 , 9)
4. court's analysis of reliance on medical testimony. (Para 10 , 11)
5. examination of conspiracy elements and legal standards. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. conditions for establishing culpability in conspiracy. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
7. discussion of admissibility of evidence and confessions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
8. court's views on the weaknesses of the prosecution's case. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
9. last seen theory and its implications on conviction. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
10. assessment of circumstantial evidence and its sufficiency. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
11. final overview of evidence and its impact on guilt. (Para 31)
12. conclusion of acquittal and procedural directives. (Para 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Manisha Batra, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE against the judgement of conviction and order on quantum of sentence dated 20.07.2015 and 21.07.2015 respectively passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat in Sessions cases arising out of FIR No.132 dated 08.04.2013 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonipat under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and Section 25 of ARMS ACT whereby the accused Priyavart, Sandeep @ Kala, Anil @ Leela, Parveen @ Kaira, Pardeep and Sumit @ Pehalwan were held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of IPC and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The accused Sumit @ Pehalwan was also held guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 (1-B) (a) of ARMS ACT .

2. The prosecution was set into motion in this case on 08.04.2013 when the dead body of an unknown youth was found by PW-1 Rakesh to be lying near the gate of Saraswati Shiksha Shansthan, Murthal Road, Sonepat. He had informed the owner of the school namely, PW-2 Vikas who had further informed the police. The victim was found to have sustained several fire arm injuries and spent as well as live cartridges and empties were found lying near the dead body. Post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on the same day. Inquest proceedings were also conducted. A case under Section 30 2 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of ARMS ACT was registered. On 09.04.2013, Dharambir s/o Rishi Pal, r/o Village Purkhas, District Sonepat contacted the police and identified the dead body to be that of his son Parveen @ Parchi. He got recorded his statement that Malad resident of Village Karor, his co-brother (husband of his sister-in-law Rajbala) was brother of Sarpanch of Village Karor who had rivalry with accused Anil who was a gangster. Malad was lodged in Hisar Jail in connection with some murder case which had occurred due to enmity between accused Anil @ Leela and family of Malad. Parveen @ Parchi son of Dharambir used to visit his mausa Malad in the jail. He further recorded that accused Anil @ Leela and Sandeep @ Kala were lodged in Tihar Jail, Delhi. Accused Pardeep, brother of accused Sandeep @ Kala had threatened the victim to not to meet Malad and help him in pursuing his cases and otherwise to face dire consequences. He disclosed that on the evening of 07.04.2013 at about 8:30 PM, his son was sitting in the Chaupal adjacent to their house, when accused Priyavart, a co-villager came on a Platina motorcycle and took his son Parveen along with him. On asking, Priyavart told him that they would be returning in short time. He further stated that his son did not return back on 08.04.2013. He had made search for his son and came to know that accused Priyavart was a

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                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

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top