IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D No. 1136 of 2022
Decided On : 01-10-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing of appellant. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. investigation and trial process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments by the parties. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. witness accounts and their reliability. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. principles governing disclosure statements. (Para 22 , 24 , 27) |
| 6. evidentiary value of confession and recovery. (Para 37 , 48) |
| 7. final judgment and execution of sentence. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
JUDGMENT :
SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 31.10.2022, upon Sessions Case No. 03 of 2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT , the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against the accused-appellant Suresh. However, the co-accused namely, Mandeep and Parvesh were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
2. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order dated 4.11.2022, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the convict in the hereafter extracted manner:
| Name of the accused | Offence under Section | Period of sentence (RI) | Fine imposed | Period of sentence in default of payment of fine |
| Suresh | 302 IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs. 25,000/- | Nine months (SI) |
| 25 Arms Act | Two years | Rs. 25,000/- | Four months (SI) | |
| 27 Arms Act | Five years | Rs. 5,000/- | Six months (SI) |
3. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment, were ordered to run concurrently However, the period of detention undergone by the accused-appellant, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment.
Factual Background
4. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex PY is assigned. As per the prosecution case, on 2.9.2017, on receipt of an information from FIMS Hospital, Sonipat regarding arrival of dead body of Sunny son of Satpal in the hospital, ASI Ranbir along with HC Kuldeep, HC Veerpal and HC Chand reached the hospital concerned where complainant Room Ram met them, and got recorded his statement (Ex. PW-6/A), which becomes extracted hereinafter:
“That he is resident of village Busana. He along with his brother-in-law (sala) Sunny son of Satpal and Sunil son of Virender, residents of village Butana working for a contractor at Indira Gandhi Airport Cargo. On 02.09.2017, they were going for their duty in Sunny's car bearing registration No. DL-2FE-0058 make Santro of black colour, which was driven by Sunny and complainant and Sunil were sitting on the rear seat of the car. Complainant was sitting behind Sunny and Sunil was sitting behind conductor seat. At about 08.00 p.m. when they reached near Kali Mandir, Bahalgarh Road, in the meanwhile, a car bearing registration No. DL-2CV-9288 of red colour make Maruti 800 obstructed their way. Sunny stopped the car and three young boys alighted from the red car and came towards their car. Sunny told him that it was Suresh son of Ved Singh and his wife had died in an accident with his car. In the meantime, one of the boy smashed the wind screen of their santro car with an iron rod. Suresh pointed a pistol on the right side temple of Sunny and fired three rounds. Sunny tried to stop him and in the process, fourth bullet hit him on the hand. The third boy fired at Sunny from the other side. Sunil got off the car and started running. One of the boys while firing followed him. Sunny died at the spot and he took him to FIMS Hospital where doctor declared him dead on arrival. He had concealed himself on the back seat to save himself from the gun shots. All the three boys along with their weapons and car fled towards village Rathdhana. He prayed that appropriate action be taken against the accused.”
On the basis of the said statement, the appeal FIR was registered.
Investigation
The conviction was upheld based on strong evidentiary links, including a confession and ballistic evidence, demonstrating the accused's culpability in murder and related firearms offences.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and a weak motive can undermine convictions; corroborated evidence must link defendants to the crime convincingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive and creditworthy evidence to support the charges against the accused, especially in cases involving eyewitness testi....
The court emphasized that disclosure statements must be corroborated by credible evidence to establish guilt, and acquittals were upheld due to insufficient evidence against several accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.