1. Conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, based on circumstantial evidence including last-seen witnesses and an extra-judicial confession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1338 Of 2010
Decided On : 05-01-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
Subject
Murder - Circumstantial Evidence
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Extra judicial confession is false and unbelievable – Chance witness relied on by prosecution to prove last seen theory – Multitasking of urinating, coughing, seeing motorcycle, noting blood stains clothes and recording registration number happens simultaneously – There is no evidence as to manner in which he had recorded registration number – His version is highly improbable – Prosecution has not recovered any sharp-edged weapon – There are no eyewitnesses – There is a yawning gap between charge against appellant and evidence that prosecution has adduced – Circumstances do not establish guilt of Appellant at all – While principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused, in present case evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies – Prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant is entitled to be acquitted – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 17, 20, 21, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Sole appellant herein was tried along with another accused for murder of one Samsher Singh and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by Trial Court. In appeal, High Court of Punjab & Haryana by Judgment impugned herein dismissed appeal and confirmed conviction and sentence.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Mrs. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. Anil Rana, Adv. Ms. Banani Sikdar, Adv. Mr. Sebat Kumar Deuria, Adv. Mr. Sagar Kundu, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rana, Adv. Mr. Ajay Solanki, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ajay Bansal, A.A.G. Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Ms. Veena Bansal,Adv. Mr. Saurav Jindal,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Yadav,Adv. Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Mrs. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. Anil Rana, Adv. Ms. Banani Sikdar, Adv. Mr. Sebat Kumar Deuria, Adv. Mr. Sagar Kundu, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rana, Adv. Mr. Ajay Solanki, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ajay Bansal, A.A.G. Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Ms. Veena Bansal,Adv. Mr. Saurav Jindal,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Yadav,Adv. Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the reliability of chance witnesses, the validity of the extra-judicial confession, and the completeness of the circumstantial evidence chain. (Para 12 , 15 , 25 , 26 )
3. Witnesses were found unreliable due to improbable testimonies and contradictions; forensic evidence was inconsistent with the nature of injuries and lacked independent verification. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of established facts that excludes every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. (Para 28 , 29 )
5. Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. What are the essential requirements for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence?
The circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, excluding every other possible hypothesis. There must be a complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence. (Para 28 )
7. When is the testimony of a chance witness considered unreliable?
Testimony is unreliable when the witness's version is improbable given the facts, such as lack of lighting at the scene, unexplained time gaps, or improbable ability to note specific details like registration numbers under the circumstances. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
8. How does the court evaluate the credibility of an extra-judicial confession?
The court examines the confession for contradictions with other evidence, such as the date of arrest or prior interactions between the witness and the deceased, to determine if the version is trustworthy. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 )
9. Can strong suspicion suffice for a criminal conviction?
No, it is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 28 )
JUDGMENT :
(Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.)
1. The sole appellant herein was tried along with another accused for the murder of one Samsher Singh and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court1[The Additional Sessions Judge Kaithal in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2004 dated 31.08.2007]. In appeal, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana2[In Criminal Appeal No. 805-DB 2007 dated 05.09.2009], by the judgment impugned herein dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Thus, the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that while the Assistant Sub- Inspector Balbir Singh, later examined as PW-21 was with other police officials on duty at Deyod Kheri Village, Jind-bypass road, Kaithal, on 11.04.2004, the complainant-Sunil Kumar Bhura (later examined as PW-20) met him and got his statement (EX.PY) recorded. The statement had that he is a resident of Nehru Garden Colony, Kaithal and the deceased-Shamsher Singh is related to him, being son of his paternal aunt. PW-20 was in business of real estate and was living in Adarsh Nagar, Kaithal. The previous day, that is on 10.04.2004, when PW-20 was in the office of the deceased along with one Balwant Singh (PW-18), the deceased received a call on his mobile phone at about 9.15 PM. A little thereafter, that is about 9.30 PM, the deceased received another phone call. After conversing on the mobile phone, the deceased informed them that he has to go to Gole Market and left on his motorcycle. The complainant and Balwant Singh also left the shop of the deceased. In the morning, the deceased’s wife informed PW-20 that the deceased had not returned the previous night. On receiving the said information, PW-20 and PW-18 reached the house of the deceased and thereafter went on a search for the deceased.
3. When PW-20 got the information that a dead body was found lying, he along with PW-18 and one Mr. Naresh (PW-13) reached the spot and saw that the deceased lying there, with his throat having knotted with some cloth, and the right eye being badly injured. They also noticed some injuries on the head of the deceased. The motorcycle of the deceased was parked by the side. While Naresh and PW-18 remained at the spot, PW-20 had come to inform the police about the incident and his statement was thus recorded and read over to him by the investigating officer (PW-21) with his endorsement at Ex. PW-21/1. After the FIR was registered, PW-24 took over the investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses.
4. During the investigation, the police recorded the statement of Rajesh, later examined as PW-11 and Jogi Ram later examined as PW-12. The statement and deposition of these two persons assumed importance as their evidence was relied on by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
5. The statement of Rajesh (PW-11) was that on 10.04.2004 while he was driving from Chandigarh to Hisar, about half a kilometre before Karnal bypass his vehicle got punctured. As he was changing the wheel, he saw four young people on motorcycle coming from eastern side and they had to slow down because of the Karnal bypass. At that time, he saw the accused were carrying dandas and one of the boy’s clothes were stained with blood. Being suspicious he noted the registration number of the motorcycle being HR 08 E 4962. This witness also says that he read about the murder of the deceased in the newspaper two days later, i.e. on 12.04.2004 and while he was returning back to Chandigarh on 13.04.2004, he saw a police vehicle standing at the Karnal bypass Chowk with some police officials and the accused. He stopped his vehicle and informed the police about the occurrence on 10.04.2004. The prosecution thus relied on this person in support of the case as a witness to have last seen the deceased with the accused.
6. Similarly, PW-12 made a statement to the police. His version is that he is a resident of S
