LexDHAN RAJ @ DHAND versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 7 S.C.R. 476 OHAN RAJ @ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2010 etc.) MAY 9, 2014 [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.341 and s.392 r/w s. 397 - Murder and robbery - Circumstantial evidence - Extra-judicial confession of co- accused - Held: In two confessions made by co-accused, there are inconsistencies as in the first confession he named D a different person as his accomplice who had taken the recovered articles whereas in the subsequent confession he named the two appellants as his accomplices and also stated that they had taken the recovered articles - The discrepancy is a glaring one as he named different accomplices in the E same incident - Further, his confessional statement does not establish anything beyond the fact that the two accused- appellants might have possessed stolen goods - It does not support prosecution case that appellants were involved in commission of murder - Thus, reliance on extra judicial confession of co-accused is misplaced - Further, no proper F recovery has been made - The objects recovered were too common articles not of much value -Moreover, evidence of recovery witness does not inspire confidence - There is no evidence to establish presence of appellants near the scene of crime - There is a gap between circumstances relied upon G by prosecution to hold appellants' guilty - There are many loopholes in prosecution case and grounds on which High Court convicted the appellants - None of the circumstances relied upon by prosecution and accepted by High Court can H 476 OHAN RAJ@ DHAND v. STATE OF HARYANA 477 4be said to be probability of appellants guilt or their involvement in the crime - Judgment of High Court is set aside ad appellants are acquitted - Circumstantial evidence - Investigation - Recovery - Witness - Interested witness. Evidence: A B Circumstantial evidence - Held: In order to base conviction on circumstantial evidence, prosecution should establish a complete unbroken chain of events so that only one inference is drawn out from the same i.e., the guilt of the C accused - If more than one inference can be drawn then accused should be entitled to benefit of doubt - In the instant case, after analysing the facts, the chain of circumstantial · evidence cannot be concluded in the manner sought to be , done by prosecution and there is a gap between the o ' circumstances relied upon by prosecution to hold appellants . guilty. Extra judicial confession - Held: Extra-judicial confession · has been treated by the Court as weak evidence in the absence of a chain of cogent circumstances, for recording a conviction. Investigation: E Recovery - Held: Recovery, of an object is not a F discovery of fact - Recovery must be of a fact which was relevant to connect it with the commfssion of crime - In the instant case, even if recovery of goods is reliable then it does not indicate that accused appellants committed the murder - The only admissible fact which can be inferred is that they G are in possession of stolen goods. The two appellants and another were prosecuted for murder of the husband of PW7 and taking away his · belongings. The prosecution case was that the husband of PW7, who was a doctor, left for his dispensary on the H 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 7 S.C.R. A stated day and time in a maruti car. Later, PW13 informed PW6, the brother of the deceased,that the dead body of the deceased was found in a field. Both of them went to the place and found the body bearing injuries. PW-6 lodged an FIR. Meanwhile co-accused 'S', who was in B custody of Delhi Police in a different case, made a statement about the occurrence of the instant case. He stated that accused 'D', appellant in Crl. A. No. 1410 of 2010 and accused 'B', appellant in Crl. A. No. 703 of 2011, were associated with him in the crime. Accused 'D' was c arrested on 4.2.1997. The trial court convicted accused 'S' and 'D' u/s 302 r/w s. 341 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/· each, and 8 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,000 u/s 392 r/w s. 397, IPC. Accused 'B', who had absconded and was tried 0 separately on his arrest, was acquitted by the trial court. The two convicts challenged their conviction in the appeal before the High Court whereas the State appealed against acquittal of a,~cused 'B'. The High Court dis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.