Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, Ramesh Chander Dimri, JJ
Pardeep – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-D-58-DB-2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.S. Mamli
For the Respondents: Pradeep Prakash Chahar

A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete, unbroken chain of evidence. Improvements in oral testimonies, failure to link weapons through forensic reports, and recoveries from public places without independent witnesses render the prosecution's case insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 303, 216, 178, 120-B/34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Failure to establish a complete chain of events - Oral dying declaration - Reliability of evidence - Trial Court's reliance on motive and recovery of weapon - Absence of independent witness for recovery - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 18-20)

Facts of the case:
Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of the deceased, allegedly committed by firing a firearm. The case relied on an oral dying declaration made by the deceased to his relative while being shifted to the hospital, a motive based on a previous criminal case, and the recovery of a weapon (pistol) pursuant to a disclosure statement. Many co-accused were acquitted by the Trial Court, and the appellant challenged the conviction arguing a lack of cogent evidence and discrepancies in testimony.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove all circumstances necessary for a conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence. The oral dying declaration appeared as an improvement not mentioned in the FIR. The recovery of the weapon was from an open area without independent witnesses, making it suspect under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The forensic report failed to link the weapon to the specific injury.

Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain to prove the appellant's guilt, and whether the alleged oral dying declaration and recovery of the weapon were reliable.

Ratio Decidendi: In criminal cases, particularly those based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, conclusive, and exclude every hypothesis of innocence. The Court ruled that improvements in witness narratives, lack of independent corroboration in recovery proceedings, and failure to link forensic evidence with the crime mandate an acquittal when reasonable doubt persists.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges, procedural history, and conviction at the sessions level. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding circumstantial evidence and motive. (Para 7 , 8)
3. failure to prove oral dying declaration and contradictions in circumstantial testimony. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. inadequacy of recovery evidence under s.27 evidence act and lack of forensic linkage. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. final outcome: acquittal due to failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 21 , 22)

1. The present appeal assails the judgment of conviction dated 03.12.2013 and the order of sentence dated 05.12.2013 rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sonepat emanating from FIR No.158 dated 30.06.2011 under Sections 302, 303, 216, 178 and 120-B/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat. Vide order dated 05.12.2013 the appellant was sentenced as under :

Section	Sentence	Fine	Sentence in default of fine
302 IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for life	₹75,000	Rigorous imprisonment for one year
25 Arms Act	Rigorous imprisonment for two years	₹2,000	Rigorous imprisonment for six months

2. The facts as culled from the final report of the prosecution under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) are that on 30.06.2011, on receipt of information from General Hospital, Sonepat regarding the death of Pawan @ Pintu son of Rajinder resident of Village Barwasni due to a firearm injury, SI Balraj along with other police officials reached the spot and received a ruqa about the death of Pawan @ Pintu. There, Rajinder son of Deepa resident of Village Barwasni (father of the deceased-Pawan @ Pintu) met the police officials and got his statement recorded alleging therein that he was an agriculturist and that his son Pawan @ Pintu aged about 19 years was a milk vendor. On the said date at about 6:00 pm Pawan @ Pintu after supplying milk at Sonepat was returning to his Village Barwasni on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-10-F-1179. When he reached two kilometres ahead of Mahra turn towards Karnal, Pardeep son of Baljeet along with two other boys whose names he did not know came on a motorcycle and Pardeep, on account of a grudge, straightaway fired a shot at the chest of his son Pawan @ Pintu. On receipt of the said information, he along with his family members reached at the spot. Some persons of the village had got his son admitted in the General Hospital, Sonepat. On reaching General Hospital, Sonepat, the Doctor revealed that Pawan @ Pintu had died due to a bullet shot. It was further the case set up that some years ago Pardeep had committed the murder of his sister-in-law (Bhabhi), namely, Bhano Devi and he was a witness in that case, the accused Pardeep was sentenced to life imprisonment in the said case. After that Pardeep came out on parole and he along with his two accomplices committed murder of his son Pawan @ Pintu on account of enmity.

3. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant-Rajinder, a formal FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 303 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. During investigation SI Balraj inspected the place of occurrence, prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PH), took in possession blood-stained earth, grass and one motorcycle from the spot. He also recorded the statement of Satpal son of Deep Chand stating therein that Pardeep had committed the murder of Pawan @ Pintu at the instance of Murti Devi wife of Baljeet and Sandeep son of Sukhbir. On the said basis, addition of offence under Section 120-B IPC was made. On 11.07.2011 supplementary statement of the complainant-Rajinder was recorded alleging therein that Pardeep along with Ankur son of Jai Kumar had committed the murder of Pawan @ Pintu and Bijender @ Makora son of Ram Kishan and Sandeep @ Mota son of Gulab Singh resident

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARHAlka Sarin, Ramesh Chander Dimri, JJPardeep – AppellantVersusState Of Haryana – RespondentCRA-D-58-DB-2014

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, Ramesh Chander Dimri, JJ
Pardeep – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-D-58-DB-2014