IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, SUKHVINDER KAUR, JJ.
Lala - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D-652-DB of 2004, CRAD-366-DB-2005
Decided On : 14-01-2026
JUDGMENT :
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose off two criminal appeals, i.e., CRA-D-652-DB of 2004 titled as “Lala Vs. State of Haryana”, and CRA-D-366-SB of 2005 titled as "Irshad Vs. State of Haryana" whereby, the appellants have challenged the common impugned judgment and order dated 12.04.2004, vide which, the appellants were convicted for the commission of the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 302 IPC alongwith default stipulation. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Section 201 IPC alongwith default stipulation.
2. The FIR Ex.PA/1 in the present case was registred on the basis of the complaint Ex.PA moved by Hukam Chand son of Moti Ram and the same has been reproduced below:-
“To
The S.H.O.
P.S.City Palwal.
Sub: regarding missing of driver Ganga Ram and maruti car No. HR-29A/0077 from 30.1.2003.
Sir,
I Hukam Chand s/o Sh. Moti Ram caste Nai am resident of Saini Nagar ward No. 10. My brother Ganga Ram aged about 27 years used to work as driver on the private vehicle of Mahesh Kumar Jain s/o Sh. Trilok Chand Jain, R/o Pirwali Gall. H. No.61. Ward No.2 when on 31.1.2003, he did not reach house in the night, then I went to the house of owner to enquire about him. The owner of the car told him that at his instance he went in the said car to leave Ram Singh s/o Ballam caste Balmiki R/o Madiya Mohalla Palwal and Suresh S/o Sh. Heera Lal caste Balmiki, R/o Jawahar Nagar Camp, Palwal in village Ghasera. When I came to the house of Suresh and Ram Singh then they told that Ram Singh was dropped at Hathin Gate by Ganga Ram driver and when he was proceeding towards camp to drop Suresh, Suresh told that near Chacha Chiken Corner two persons Lala s/o Sh.Khichu, caste Thakur R/o near Panchwati Road behind Naaz Cinema and Irshad s/o Sh. Idrish caste Muslim, R/o Ganda Nala Geet Palace Cinema got into the car and Suresh was dropped in camp. My brother Ganga Ram has been enticed away in the night of 30.1.2003 alongwith vehicle by Lala and Irshad in order to commit offence.
It is therefore requested that action against the accused persons may be taken immediately. It will be greatness of you.
| Dated 03.02.2003 | Applicant |
Sd/ in Hindi
Hukam Chand s/o Sh. Moti Ram.
R/o Saini Nagar, Palwal”.
3. After the registration of the FIR, both the accused were arrested by the police on 11.02.2003. In police custody, accused Lala made disclosure statement that he and other co-accused Irshad and Ganga Ram, since deceased, had liqour at Chacha Chiken Corner and a dispute arose between Irshad and Ganga Ram. Firstly, they gave blows to Ganga Ram and then he was taken to tubewell of Master Hari Chand in the area of village Jodhpur. Again, he was beaten up and was strangulated to death, inside the tubewell room with his own muffler. They had put Ganga Ram, since deceased, in a car and the dead body was thrown in the Agra Canal. Irshad also made similar disclosure statement and both the accused led the police and witnesses to the specified place. Lala got recovered pant and shirt of Ganga Ram, since deceased, from a place behind his own tubewell near the tubewell of Master Hari Chand. Irshad, accused also got recovered a lagging, sweater and shoes of Ganga Ram, deceased in the room of his house. The belongings of deceased were taken into possession by the police and separate recovery memos were prepared in this regard. On 17.02.2003, the dead body of Ganga Ram was recovered in a highly decomposed condition and the postmortem examination was conducted on the dead body. During the course of investigation, both the accused had also identifed the place of throwing the dead body and memo in that behalf was also prepared. After completion of investigation, the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared by SI Krishan Kumar and was presented before the Court of Area Magistrate.
4. Since,
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete and conclusive chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is necessary; mere suspicion is insufficient.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for a complete chain of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and conclusive circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
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.