LexDAULAT RAM @ DAULTI versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 1001 DAULAT RAM @ DAULTI v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2015) MARCH 17, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 1001 A B Penal code, 1860: s.302 rlw s.34 and s.201 - C Conviction by courts below based on circumstantial evidence - Deceased brutally murdered and his dead body thrown in dry well - Evidence of prosecution witnesses were not found to be trustworthy - Motive or previous 0 enmity of the appellant-accused with the deceased was a/so not proved - Chain of circumstances wa$ not complete to prove charge of offences ulss.302 and 201 against the appellant - Conviction liable to be set aside. Allowing the appeal, the court E HELD: 1. PW-1, father of the deceased supported the prosecution case that the dead body of his son (deceased) was recovered from the dry we.II. PW-2, proved the fact that he had seen the appellant F consuming liquor with the deceased and the three co- accused. He further stated that he informed about the above last seen evidence to his brother PW-1. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was at the place of his duty between 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. It also G came on the record that the distance between his village and his place of work was about 10-12 Kms, which he used to cover in one-two hours. When asked 1001 H 1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A about the source of light in which he identified the appellant and other co-accused, he told that there was light of fire. But evidence of this witness did not inspire confidence nor appeared to be natural or trust worthy. PW-9 another brother of PW-1 stated that from behind B a bush he saw appellant and other three accused dragging some dead body and throwing the same into the well in early hours of 10.1.2002. In his cross- examination, this witness stated that he came to know that the deceased was missing only at 9.00 a.m. on C 10.1.2002. What was not sufficiently explained in his statement was that if he actually saw that some dead body was being dragged and thrown into the well, why he remained silent in the village till he came to know 0 that the deceased was missing. The act of throwing the dead body into the well is such an incident, which a person who had witnessed it, would immediately disclose in the village. Evidence of this witness, who is also relative of the informant, did not appear to be E trust worthy as his presence near tube well cannot be said to be natural. Next witness of fact is PW-11, nephew of PW-1, who has attempted to corroborate that PW-9 told PW-1 about the fact that he had seen dragging of the dead body by four persons. Had the F incident been taken inside the house or courtyard, it could have been said that only the relatives living in the house or the next door neighbours had the opportunity to see the incident. But in the present case, the reasonable doubt cropped up as to why in G respect of an incident far away from the house of the informant, only informant and his relatives could see it. [Paras 13 to 16) [1008-E-H; 1009-A-H; 1010-A-B] 2. There was nothing on record to suggest that H appellant had any enmity with the deceased or that he DAULAT RAM@ DAULTI v. STATE OF HARYANA 1003 had any motive to commit the crime. No doubt, motive A is not required to be proved for commission of a crime but in a case· of circumstantial evidence, it cannot be altogether ignored where the other accused with similar role have been acquitted, from the charges of murder. The chain of circumstances brought on record B was not complete to prove charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against appellant as such, the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below against him is liable to be set aside. [Paras 17 to 19) [1010-D-G] C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2012 of o the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 546-DB of 2010. S. C. Paul, Resham Singh, Roopa Paul, Satyendra Kumar for the Appellant. • E Amit Kumar, AAG, Vishwa Pratap Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Respondsnt. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. Heard. F 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 6.02.2012, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 546-DB of 2010 whereby G the appeal is dismissed and the conviction
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.