Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 804/2011
RAM PRATAP ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, vide which it set
aside the conviction of the present appellant – Ram Pratap
under Section 120-B of IPC, while maintaining the conviction
for the offence under 302 of the IPC. The High Court also
confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment. In so far as the
Signature Not Verified
acquittal of the other accused are concerned, the High Court
Digitally signed by
Deepak Singh
Date: 2022.12.14
09:57:56 IST
Reason:
maintained the same.
1
2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the deceased -
Om Prakash was on visiting terms with the present appellant/
th
accused- Ram Pratap. On 13 December 2007 at 10:00 AM, the
accused Ram Pratap visited the house of the deceased - Om
Prakash and after taking tea both went together. At 12
midnight, the present appellant - Ram Pratap along with others
came to the house of deceased with his dead body in a jeep. He
met Jagdish Chander (PW - 4), the brother of the deceased and
told him that the deceased died at his house. On the basis of
the complaint of Jagdish Chander (PW-4), an FIR came to be
registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet
was filed against the four accused persons.
3. In so far as the evidence of Jagdish Chander (PW - 4) is
concerned, when he reported the matter to the police on the
basis of which FIR was registered, he had only expressed a
suspicion against the present appellant. We further find that
there was a delay of 14 hours in reporting the incident to the
police.
2
4. The learned trial Court relying upon the evidence of PW-4,
PW-7 and PW-8 held that the prosecution has proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant.
Further, on the basis of the same evidence, the Trial Judge
acquitted the other accused whose acquittal has been upheld
by the High Court.
5. The High Court, while confirming the conviction of the
appellant, relied upon the evidence of Jagdish Chander (PW-4).
Further, the High Court specifically records that Bhagwana
(PW-5), the brother-in-law of the deceased, who was the witness
to the last seen, has turned hostile and thus did not support
the prosecution case.
6. We have heard Mr. Mayank Dahiya, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Dinesh Chander
Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-
State.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
- State submitted that the High Court as well as the trial court
have grossly erred in convicting the appellant when there is no
3
evidence worth the namesake. The learned counsel for the
respondent – State submitted that the trial court as well as the
High Court has appreciated the evidence in the correct
perspective and no interference is warranted.
8. Undisputedly, the present case is a case based on
circumstantial evidence.
9. It has been held by this Court in a catena of cases
including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
reported at (1984) 4 SCC 116, that suspicion, howsoever strong,
cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court
has held that there is not only a grammatical but also a legal
distinction between ‘may’ and ‘must’. For proving a case based
on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution
to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable
doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form
a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act
has been done by the accused. Further, it has been held that
4
the facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except
the guilt of the accused.
10. In the present case, if the evidence of Jagdish Chander (PW
- 4) is to be appreciated wherein he has stated that the accused
came to his house and informed him that he has killed the
deceased-Om Prakash, such statement does not find any
mention in the oral report. Apart from this, the delay of 14 hours
in lodging the oral report has not been sufficiently explained.
The only witness of the last seen theory, i.e. PW-5, has turned
hostile and has thus been disbelieved.
11. Apart from that, the trial court disbelieved the very same
evidence in so far as the other four accused were concerned.
The said acquittal has also been found to be valid by the High
Court.
12. In that view of the matter, we find that the High Court as
well as the trial court were not justified in convicting the
appellant. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted
of the charges. The bail bonds stand cancelled.
5
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………….J.
(B.R. Gavai)
…………………………..J.
(Vikram Nath)
New Delhi;
01.12.2022
6