RAM NIWAS versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2022] 13 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 11-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
RAM NIWAS
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2012)
AUGUST 11, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Completion of chain of
evidence – Held: There has to be a chain of evidence so complete
so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused –
Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency –
The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved – The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may
be’ guilty before a Court can convict – It is settled law that the
suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof
beyond reasonable doubt – An accused cannot be convicted on the
ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – An accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 8 SCC 233 :
[2010] 9 SCR 356; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88
– relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 9 SCR 356
relied on
Para 15
[1985] 1 SCR 88
relied on
Para 18
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
25 of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2009 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.47-DB of
2005.
Rishi Malhotra, Jaydip Patil, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2022] 13 S.C.R. 138
138
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
Birendra Kumar Choudhary, AAG, Ms. Padma Choudhary,
Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th March 2009,
thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas,
which was filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11th/12th
January 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, thereby
convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short) and sentencing
him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two years under Section 302 IPC and to suffer imprisonment for three
years and to a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences are
directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus:
2.1
Deceased Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh (P.W.10), and the
complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) are brothers. Pale, son
of Bhim Singh (P.W.10), was married to Sunita, daughter
of Chander Singh and the sister of the accused/appellant-
Ram Niwas. After the death of Pale, his wife Sunita along
with her minor son went to her parental house in village
Rewli. Deceased Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh (P.W.10), and
complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) wanted Sunita to be
married to Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh. As such,
on 7th March 2003, all three of them had gone to the house
of Chander Singh, father of the accused/appellant-Ram
Niwas with the proposal of remarriage of Sunita with
Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh.
2.2
It is the prosecution case that all three of them reached
village Rewli and went to the house of Chander Singh, father
of the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas at around 5.00 p.m.
on 7th March 2003. At around 7.30 p.m., deceased Dalip
Singh and accused/appellant-Ram Niwas started taking
RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 13 S.C.R.
liquor and at that time the proposal of marrying Sunita with
Rampal was mentioned. On such mention being made,
accused/appellant-Ram Niwas got angry and started
abusing deceased Dalip Singh. However, complainant-Deep
Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) intervened and
pacified the accused/appellant-Ram Niwas. Thereafter, both
of them after having their meals went to the first floor to
sleep.
2.3
On the morning of 8th March 2003, at around 6.30 a.m.,
when the complainant-Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh
(P.W.10) went to the drawing room of Chander Singh,
deceased Dalip Singh was not seen there. They asked about
the whereabouts of deceased Dalip Singh from the accused/
appellant-Ram Niwas, who told them that he had gone for
answering the call of nat
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.