LexPRADEEP KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 1 S.C.R. 306 : 2024 INSC 21 Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2010) 05 January 2024 [B. R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*, JJ.] Issue for Consideration In a case based only on circumstantial evidence, conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, if justified. Headnotes Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution based only on circumstantial evidence – Conviction of the appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, IPC – Propriety: Held: Versions of the three witnesses (PW-10, PW-11 and 12) are improbable and contradictory – The weapons recovered by the IO and the ones seen by the witnesses are only sticks – However, the deceased had suffered an incise wound which according to the doctor, PW-14 who conducted the post-mortem, was caused by a sharp-edged weapon – Prosecution did not recover any sharp-edged weapon – In fact, there is no mention about a sharp-edged weapon at all – FSL report states that the “pant” sent to them for examination was one dirty blue “terikot pant” – However, as per the recovery memo a “jeans pant” was recovered from the Appellant – Additionally, the FSL report states that the blood on the sticks, blood-stained pants and the blood group of the deceased is the same “O+” – This is not an indication of the guilt – Moreover, nothing of these recoveries took place in the presence of an independent witness – Thus, there is a yawning gap between the charge against the Appellant and the evidence adduced – The circumstances do not establish the guilt of the Appellant at all – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies – Prosecution did not [2024] 1 S.C.R. 307 Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana establish its case beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court set aside – Appellant acquitted. [Paras 25, 26, 29-32] Case Law Cited Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. The State of Punjab [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1033: (2023) 7 SCC 727; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88:(1984) 4 SCC 116 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Circumstantial evidence; Murder; Case not established beyond reasonable doubt; Acquittal. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1338 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2009 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No.805-DB of 2007. Appearances for Parties Pranab Kumar Mullick, Mrs. Soma Mullick, Anil Rana, Ms. Banani Sikdar, Sebat Kumar Deuria, Sagar Kundu, Rohit Rana, Ajay Solanki, Advs. for the Appellant. Ajay Bansal, A.A.G., Gaurav Yadava, Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ms. Veena Bansal, Saurav Jindal, Sanjay Yadav, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court 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 308 [2024] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court1. In appeal, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana2 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.