JITENDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2012] 4 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 08-05-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 408 
JITENDER KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1763 of 2008) 
MAY 8, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
ss. 120-8 and 302134 IPC- Murder- Victim strangulated 
to death by father-in-law, brother-in-law and others - Evidence 
of the brother and the husband of the victim - Disclosure 
statement of one of the accused - Out of 5 accused, 4 
convicted and sentenced by trial court ulss 120-8 and 3021 
0 · 34 and the fifth convicted u/s 1208 an.d also sentenced to 
imprisonment for life - Held: The prosecution has been able 
to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by ocular, 
documentary and medical evidence - The judgment of the 
High Court under appeal does not call for any interference -
E Once the court finds an accused guilty of s.1208, where the 
accused had conspired to commit an offence and actually 
committed the offence with other accused with whom he 
conspired, they all shall individually be punished for the 
. offence for which such conspiracy was hatched - Thus, there 
is no error in the judgment of the trial court in convicting the 
F accused u/s 1208 read with s.302. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s.27 - Disclosure statement - Admissibility of - Held: 
The part of the disclosure statement cannot be taken to be 
G confession of the accused in relation to commission of the 
crime, but the other part by which the motor cycle which was 
used by the accused in facilitating the crime was recovered, 
would be the portion admissible in evidence. 
H 
408 
JITENDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 
409 
Criminal Law: 
A 
Accused not named in FIR - Conviction of - Held: An 
accused who has not been named in the FIR, but to whom a 
definite role is attributed in the commission of the crime and 
when such role is established by cogent and reliable 
8 
evidence and the prosecution is also able to prove its case 
beyond reasonable doubt, such an accused can be punished 
in accordance with law, if found guilty - In the instant case, a 
definite role has been attributed to the accused concerned by 
two prosecution witnesses and it was on his disclosure 
statement that the motorcycle used by him to facilitate the 
C 
crime was recovered. 
Medical Jurisprudence: 
Time of death and contents of stomach - Held: Judging o 
the time of death from the contents of the stomach, may not 
always be the determinative test -
It will require due 
corroboration from other evidence - If the prosecution is able 
to prove its case, including the time of death, beyond 
reasonable doubt and the same points towards the gwlt of the 
E 
accused, then it may not be appropriate for the court to wholly 
reject the case of the prosecution and to determine the time 
of death with reference to the stomach contents of the 
deceased. 
Delay!Laches: 
Delay in filing FIR - Held: Cannot be a ground by itself 
for throwing away the entire prosecution case - The court has 
to seek an explanation for delay and check the truthfulness 
F 
of the version put forward - In the instant case, keeping in view 
G 
the circumstances in which the witnesses informed police, 
some delay in registering the FIR was inevitable and it is not 
such inordinate delay which could be construed as a ground 
for acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution has been able 
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 
H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s.313 -
Statement of the accused who died during 
pendency of proceedings - Held: The part of the statement 
that supports the case of the prosecution as well as 
8 
statements of other witnesses can be relied upon by the 
prosecution to a limited extent -
The statement may not be 
used against the other accused as such, but the fact that the 
statement supports the case of the prosecution cannot be 
wiped out from the record and would have its consequences 
in law. 
c 
The three appellants along with two others were 
prosecuted for the murder of the sister of PW-11. The 
prosecution case was that 'RR' (father-in-law of the 
deceased) was more inclined towards the children of his 
D sister-in-law (Sali) than his own children and was helping 
them financially as also by parting with the household 
articles. This was objected to by the deceased and her 
husband (PW 10). Having come to know of this protest, 
'SK' and 'S' (the accused appellants, in criminal appeal 
E no. 1092 of 2009) and 'PK', the brother-in-law of the 
deceased thr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.