Page 1

JUDGMENT

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1410 of 2010

Dhan Raj @ Dhand

… Appellant

versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 703 of 2011

Badal

… Appellant

versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. These appeals arise from the impugned judgment of the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein vide a common

judgment dated February 26, 2010, the High Court disposed of

Page 2

JUDGMENT

Criminal Appeal No. 496-DB of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 510-

DB of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of 2009 and Criminal

Revision No. 334 of 2000. The present appeals however arise

out of Criminal Appeal No. 496-DB of 1999 filed by accused

Dhan Raj challenging the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated September 25 and 27, 1999 passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in Sessions Case No.21 of

21.5.1997/13.08.1998 and Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of 2009

filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment of acquittal

dated February 18, 2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar

in Session Case No.73 of 21.5.1997/17.3.2008, acquitting the

accused Badal of the charges framed against him.

2. The High Court in the present matters convicted the accused

appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidence by the

impugned judgment. It has been well established by leading

judicial precedents that where the prosecution’s case is based

on circumstantial evidence, only the circumstantial evidence of

the highest order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal

prosecution. In order to base conviction on circumstantial

evidence the circumstantial evidence put forth by the

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

prosecution should establish a complete unbroken chain of

events so that only one inference is drawn out from the same.

If more than one inference can be drawn then the accused

should be entitled to the benefit of doubt.

3. In the present appeals we therefore would evaluate the case of

the prosecution in terms of the evidence brought on record and

the statements and discovery made in the course of

investigation.

4. The case of the prosecution revealed in the first appeal (being

Crl.A. No.1410 of 2010) is that the deceased Vijaypal was

serving a doctor who was posted in the Dispensary of Village

Kheri Jat and residing at Jhajjar. On January 24, 1997 he left for

his dispensary from his home at 9.45 a.m. by a Maruti car

which did not have a registration number. Sukhbir Singh (PW

13), a dispenser posted at Kheri Jat informed Harpal Singh (PW

6), brother of deceased that the dead body of Vijaypal was

found in a field of village Bizidpur where Harpal Singh went

with Sukhbir Singh and found the body in a side posture

bearing injuries from a sharp-edged weapon. There was blood

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

on the ground and the Maruti car was found to be missing.

Harpal Singh filed an FIR and investigation was initiated. Post

mortem was also performed. The wife of the deceased

disclosed that the deceased had with him a briefcase and a

wrist-watch when he left home. Co-accused Sanjay, while in

custody of Delhi Police for a different case, made a statement

about the occurrence of this case. Subsequently, his production

warrants were obtained and he was arrested for the present

murder on February 4, 1997. Sanjay in his disclosure statement

states that Dhan Raj and Badal, the appellants herein, were

associated with him in the commission of the crime and that

Dhan Raj had taken away the briefcase and Badal took the

wrist-watch of the deceased. Furthermore, in his statement,

Sanjay disclosed that he had concealed a Kirpan along with his

blood sta