State Haryana vs Brijesh Etc

1
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH


CRA-D-789-DBA-2004 (O&M)
Reserved on: October 28, 2026

Date of Pronouncement: November 11, 2026

Uploaded on: November 11, 2026


State of Haryana
...Appellant

Versus



Brijesh and another

.... Respondents




CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARMEET SINGH DEOL



Argued by: Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,
for the appellant-State of Haryana.


Mr. Gautam Dutt, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate,

for the respondents.


Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
for the respondents.


HARMEET SINGH DEOL, J.


1. The State has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment
dated 29.04.2003 passed by learned trial Court, thereby acquitting the
respondents i.e. Brijesh and Satbir.
2. The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:
That, on 19.10.2000, ASI Gajender Kumar, Incharge, Police Post Kherki
Daula, received an information that a dead body was lying on National
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


Highway No. 8, near Village Shikohpur, in front of Apno Ghar. Upon
receiving this information, he proceeded to the place where the dead body was
lying and after searching the dead body, he recovered an identity card of the
deceased, from which, identity of the deceased person was ascertained.
Besides the identity card, a pass issued by the Haryana Roadways Depot,
Rohtak, was also recovered from the pocket of the deceased. Thereafter, the
parents of the deceased were informed, Kulwant Singh, father of the deceased,
reached the spot and got his statement recorded to the effect that, on
19.10.2000, he had gone to Julana in connection with some personal work,
where he received an information over the telephone that his son-Urjesh, had
met with an accident. Kulwant Singh upon reaching Gurgaon, met his wife,
Shakuntla, and one Sudesh, wife of Ashok, who told him that the dead body
of his son-Urjesh was lying near National Highway No. 8, close to Apno
Ghar. Then he (Kulwant Singh) along with his brother Ram Kumar and
Sushil, son of Om Parkash, had gone to the spot, where he identified the dead
body of his son-Urjesh. Kulwant Singh initially stated before the police that
he had no suspicion against anyone regarding the murder of his son-Urjesh.
Thereupon, formal FIR, i.e., FIR No. 623 dated 19.10.2000, under Sections
302/34 IPC, was recorded at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon. However, on the
same date, Kulwant Singh made a supplementary statement before the police,
in which he named his son respondent No.1-Brijesh, in the murder of his son
deceased-Urjesh. Investigation was set into motion. ASI Gajender Kumar
carried out the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He sent the dead body
of Urjesh to the Civil Hospital, Gurgaon, through Constable Kulbhushan and
UGC Prem Singh, for post-mortem examination. He took into possession the
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


blood-stained earth from the spot vide separate memo and recorded the
statements of the witnesses. On the same day, i.e., 19.10.2000, the SHO of
Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, namely, Shri Fateh Singh, also inspected the
place of occurrence, prepared the rough site plan and recovered a chappal,
which was taken into possession vide separate memo after being converted
into a separate parcel, duly sealed with the seal 'GK'. He also recorded the
statements of the witnesses. Mohan Lal, photographer, clicked the
photographs of the dead body.
3. That, on 27.10.2000, both the respondents went to the house of
Surjit Singh, where they made an extra-judicial confession to him in the
presence of one Joginder to the effect that they had committed the murder of
deceased-Urjesh by strangulating him with the help of a rope and thereafter
threw his dead body on the National Highway No. 8, near Apno Ghar. The
motive behind the commission of the offence was that the respondent No.1
Brijesh had an agricultural land dispute with the deceased and Kulwant Singh,
father of both the deceased and the respondent No.1-Brijesh, as Kulwant
Singh was not transferring the land in favour of the respondent No.1-Brijesh
due to pressure from his wife, Shakuntala, and his deceased son-Urjesh.
Respondent No.1-Brijesh/accused informed Surjit Singh that, since the police
was suspecting him, he wanted his help, as he is not involved in the case.
Thereafter, both the respondents, namely, Brijesh and Satbir, were produced
before the police, where respondent No.2-Satbir also stated that they had
committed the murder of the deceased Urjesh. Thereafter, both the
respondents were arrested. In pursuance of the disclosure statement of
respondent No.1-Brijesh, a rope (rassi) was recovered, which was allegedly
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

4
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


used in the commission of the crime. Respondent No.1 Brijesh also got
recovered a car from the place of concealment and one chappal of the
deceased-Urjesh was recovered lying underneath the passenger seat of the car
and the same was taken into possession vide separate memo. Upon
completion of the investigation, challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was
presented before the concerned Magistrate.
4. Accordingly, the respondents No.1 and 2 were charge sheeted
under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty to

the charge and claimed trial of the case.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many 18
witnesses. The gist of the same is as follows:-
PW-1 Dr.S.K.Sharma, had deposed about the conducting of the
autopsy, on the dead body of Urjesh and gave the detail of the injuries, found
on his person. He further also proved the post-mortem report Ex.PB. After
examining the ligature material, he had opined that the ligature material was

sufficient to be used to strangulate the deceased in the present case.
PW-2 Mukesh Kumar, PW-15 Manjeet and PW-17 Surjit Singh are the

witnesses, relating to the last seen and extra-judicial confession.
PW-3 Tilak Raj, PW-4 Constable Kulbhushan, PW-5 MHC Ram
Tirath Singh and PW-6 Constable Joginder Singh, are the witnesses, relating
to the registration of the FIR, attesting witness to the recovery memo and link
evidence, respectively. Besides the same, PW-7 SI Shakuntla has been
examined, who had dispatched the ligature material to the doctor. PW-8 Head
Constable Ranjit Singh, deposed about the dispatch of the special report to the

concerned authorities.
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

5
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


PW-9 Inspector Randhir Singh, who had conducted part investigation
of the case, deposed about having recovered string (rope) and he had also
dispatched the same to the doctor through SI Shakuntla and had prepared the

challan.
PW-10 Saranand, Patwari, deposed about having prepared the scaled
site plan of the spot, which is Ex.PK. PW-11 Head Constable Mohan Lal,
deposed having clicked the photographs of the dead body and proved the
photographs as well as the negatives Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 to Ex.P8,
respectively. PW-12 Prem Singh, UGC, had associated the investigating
officer in the inquest proceedings and deposed about body having handed over

to him, to facilitate conducting of the autopsy, upon the same.
PW-13 ASI Gajender Singh, is the investigating officer of the present
case, who had conducted initial investigation of the case. Upon getting
information of the dead body lying on the National Highway, he reached the
spot. Upon search, he had recovered the identity card of the dead body and
further also, he recorded the statement of Kulwant Singh, which is Ex.PE and
his endorsement upon the same is Ex.PE/2, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex.PF
was registered and endorsement made by him on the ruqqa is Ex.PE/1. He
further deposed about recording of the statements and the despatch of the dead

body for the purposes of conducting of post-mortem examination.
PW-14 Kulwant Singh is the complainant and father of deceased

Urjesh. He had deposed as per the prosecution version.
PW-16 Shakuntla, is the step mother of respondent No.1-Brijesh. She
has deposed about the relationship between complainant-Kulwant Singh,
herself, as well as respondent No.1-Brijesh. She further deposed about there
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

6
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004



to be dispute regarding the property.
PW-18 DSP Fateh Singh, had also conducted part investigation of the
case. He had deposed about having inspected the spot of occurrence and
preparation of site plan Ex.PQ and also got recovered one ‘chappal’ from the
place of occurrence, which was taken into possession, vide memo Ex.PB.
Furthermore, he had also stated about recording of the statements of the
witnesses and recording of supplementary statement of the complainant. The
said witness also deposed about having handing over the clothes of the
deceased, which were converted into parcel and taken into possession vide
separate memo. Further, he had deposed about the accused having produced
by Surjit Singh and Joginder before him and during the course of
interrogation, Brijesh had made the disclosure statement Ex.PN, on the basis
whereof, the string was recovered, which was taken into possession vide
separate memo. Further, he deposed about preparation of the site plan of spot
of recovery and also about recovery of another ‘chappal’ underneath the
conductor seat of the car, which was also taken into possession, vide memo
Ex.PP. Also, he deposed about the same to have been handed over to MHC
and that the car was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.P14.
6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondents were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating evidence was put to
them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication. Respondent No.1-
Brijesh has taken a plea that he has been falsely involved at the instance of his
step mother Shakuntala who had always remained inimical towards him as she
wanted the entire property of Kulwant Singh PW-14 to go to her son
deceased-Urjesh, when he was alive. He further stated that upon the death of
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

7
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


Urjesh in an accident, she wanted to remove him from the picture, as she
wanted to grab the entire property of Kulwant Singh. He further stated that
she was also upset with the partition of the property already effected by
Kulwant Singh .
In defence, accused-respondent No.1 examined as many as four
witnesses.
DW-1 Abhey Singh Dahiya, Advocate, had deposed about affidavit
Ex.DA having executed by Mukesh Kumar and he identified Mukesh Kumar,

at the time of execution of the affidavit Ex.DA.
DW-2 Rajmal Malik, Advocate, had deposed about affidavit Ex.DA

executed by Mukesh Kumar and he attested the same as Notary.
DW-3 Daya Ram is the Lambardar of the village. He deposed about

having produced Satbir before Police Station Sadar.
DW-4 Vijay Laxmi, Advocate, had proved the affidavit Ex.DF and
identified Surjit Singh s/o Om Parkash and further also deposed about Surjit

to be relative of deceased and complainant party.
Counsel for the accused also tendered into evidence, attested photocopy
of statement of Surjit in case FIR No.149 of 2000 under Section 302 IPC of
P.S. Julana Ex.DG and attested copy of statement of Kulwant in the same as

Ex.DH.
7. After hearing public prosecutor and defence counsel, the trial
Court acquitted respondents No.1 and 2 vide impugned judgment dated
29.04.2003 of all the charges framed against them as prosecution could not
succeed to bring home the guilt to the respondents beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant-State of Haryana filed the
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

8
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


present appeal.
Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the respondents heard.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has
contended that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are erroneous
and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that respondents No.1 Brijesh is the
son of Kulwant Singh from his first wife and the deceased Urjesh is the son
from his second wife Shakuntala. That a dispute existed regarding the land
owned by Kulwant Singh, as respondent No.1 Brijesh was allegedly
threatening Kulwant Singh to have the said land transferred in his name. The
said demand was opposed by Shakuntala, the second wife of Kulwant Singh,
and the deceased, Urjesh. It is, therefore, contended that the aforesaid property
dispute constituted the motive for the murder of the deceased. Learned
counsel further submits that on this account, respondent No. 1 and 2 took the
deceased, Urjesh, in their car and, after consuming liquor, committed his
murder. Learned counsel for the appellant-State further referred to the
testimony of PW-1 Dr. S. K. Sharma, who stated that the deceased had died
due to ligature strangulation and that alcohol was present in the contents of the
stomach of the deceased, at the time of the post-mortem examination. It is
further submitted that the learned trial Court had wrongly disregarded the
evidence qua extra-judicial confession, last seen evidence and recoveries
made, on the basis of the disclosure statement of respondent No.1-Brijesh.
Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the learned
trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents primarily on the ground that the
chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and certain links in the
prosecution case were missing. Thus, a prayer was made that the impugned
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

9
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


judgement of acquittal dated 29.04.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, warrants interference and that respondents are
liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offences for which they were
charged.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. He contended
that the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, so every link in the
chain has to be firmly established. Even the prosecution’s case that the
deceased was made to consume liquor before the murder is not proved as PW-
1 Dr. S.K. Sharma admitted in cross-examination that no blood sample was
taken to determine the alcohol content. Learned senior counsel further
submitted that the record shows a material discrepancy as to who first
informed the police and Kulwant Singh about the occurrence. In his first
statement before the police in which FIR was registered, Kulwant Singh
suspected no one. Later, he named his son respondent No.1-Brijesh in a
supplementary statement.
11. On motive, learned senior counsel also submitted that there was
no land dispute at all. The affidavit dated 02.12.1997 (Ex. DC) shows that the
land had already been partitioned between respondents no.1 Brijesh and the
deceased, and possession had been delivered. As to the last-seen evidence, he
contended that Mukesh Kumar (PW-2) did not know the accused and had
earlier sworn an affidavit (Ex.DA) that they never visited his dhaba. He
further contended that the circumstances in which Manjeet (PW-15) came to
be examined remain unexplained. On these grounds, he submitted that the trial
Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents.
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

10
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


12. Learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that in the present case of
circumstantial evidence, there is a missing link in the chain of evidence and
further reiterated the arguments raised by learned senior counsel for the
respondents.
13. With the able assistance of counsel for the parties, we have
perused the trial Court record.
14. Before adverting to the evidence on record, it is apposite to
notice the settled principles governing the appraisal of evidence in a criminal
trial. It is a trite proposition of law that suspicion, however grave, cannot take
the place of proof. The prosecution, in order to succeed on a criminal charge,
cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of “may be true” but has to
essentially elevate it to the grade of “must be true”. In a criminal prosecution,
the Court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take
the place of legal proof. Where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the
backdrop of the evidence available, the benefit of such doubt has to be
extended to the accused so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. Such a doubt,
however, has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-
existent. It must be one which an impartial, prudent and analytical mind
would entertain, judged on the touchstone of reason and common sense. At
the same time, the primary postulate of criminal jurisprudence is that if two
views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the
accused and the other to his innocence, the view favourable to the accused
ought to be adopted. Running throughout is the inalienable interface between
the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, which in a criminal
case always rests on the prosecution.
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

11
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


15. Indisputably, there is no direct evidence to connect the
respondents with the crime and the prosecution case rests solely upon
circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that an offence can be proved not
only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence. Where there is no
direct evidence, the Court has to examine whether the incriminating facts and
circumstances are wholly incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must
themselves be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must be shown to be
closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from them.
Circumstantial evidence, in essence, is a combination of facts creating a net
without any tear through which the accused may escape. The golden
principles, which constitute the ‘Panchsheel’ of the proof of a case based on
circumstantial evidence, were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1984 SC 1622 ,
as follows:-
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn, should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the

accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved; and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

12
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


probability the act must have been done by the accused.

The aforesaid principles have been consistently followed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with cases based on circumstantial
evidence, including in Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, 2013(3) RCR
(Criminal) 227 and Dhan Raj @ Dhand Vs. State of Haryana, 2014(3)
RCR (Criminal) 888 , which were further relied upon in Jose @ Pappachan
Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and another , 2016(4) RCR
(Criminal) 808 .
16. In a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore, all the
circumstances must be fully established and all the facts so established must
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The
circumstances so established should exclude every other possible hypothesis
except the one sought to be proved and must be conclusive in nature.
Circumstantial evidence is a close companion of the factual matrix, creating a
fine network through which there can be no escape for the accused, primarily
because those facts, when taken as a whole, do not permit the Court to arrive
at any inference other than the one indicating the guilt of the accused.
17. At the same time, while dealing with a case of circumstantial
evidence, the Court has to be circumspect. A note of caution has been sounded
time and again that the Courts must be watchful and avoid the danger of
allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof. It has also been held that
there is a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’, and
it is this distance which divides conjectures from sure conclusions. While
appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court, therefore, has to guard
against falling into this dangerous trap.
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

13
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


18. Learned senior counsel for the respondents and learned Amicus
Curiae have pointed out various gaps and lapses in the evidence led by the
prosecution. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
and another, 2011(2) Criminal Court Cases 613 , wherein it was observed
that “deficiency in investigation, by way of omissions and lapses, on the part
of investigating agency, cannot in themselves justify a total rejection of the
prosecution case”. Bearing these principles in mind, this Court has examined
whether the infirmities in the present case are mere lapses in investigation or
whether they go to the root of the prosecution case and break the chain of
circumstances.
19. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes
significance. Where there is no eyewitness account, the existence of a motive
may provide a link in the chain of circumstances, though its absence alone is
not fatal to the prosecution. Conversely, where motive is alleged but not
proved, this circumstance weighs in favour of the accused. Reference in this
regard may be made to Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 10
SCC 166 , followed in Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra,
(2021) 5 SCC 626 . It is in this backdrop that the motive alleged by the

prosecution is to be examined.
20. As far as motive is concerned, Learned counsel for the appellant-
State of Haryana has argued that, PW-16 Shakuntala, stepmother of
respondent No.1-Brijesh and mother of the deceased Urjesh, stated in her
testimony that respondent No.1-Brijesh was pressurizing Kulwant Singh (PW-
14) (father of respondent No.1-Brijesh) to transfer the land in his favour.
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

14
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


However, the affidavit (Ex. DC) executed by Kulwant Singh (PW-14) in the
year 1997 (much prior to the date of occurrence) clearly reveals that the land
had already been partitioned between both the brothers and the possession
thereof had also been handed over to them in accordance with their respective
shares. Thus, the version put forth by PW-16 Shakuntala regarding the
respondent No.1-Brijesh putting pressure upon his father for transfer of the
land does not appear to be consistent with the documentary evidence on
record. Furthermore, the testimony of Kulwant Singh (PW-14), father of the
deceased, to the effect that respondent No.1-Brijesh had been cultivating his
land situated at Sampla and was not allowing him to receive any penny of the
income derived therefrom, is also rendered doubtful in view of the contents of
the aforesaid affidavit (Ex. DC). This plea has been taken by respondent no.1
Brijesh in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The said affidavit,
therefore, raises a material contradiction with the oral testimony of PW-16 &
PW-14 and casts doubt upon the prosecution version regarding the alleged
dispute over the land.
21. Further, it has also emerged from the statements of PW-14
Kulwant Singh and PW-16 Shakuntla that respondent No.1-Brijesh had given
beatings to Shakuntla, on two or three occasions and had also extended threats
to eliminate them. Kulwant Singh further stated in his cross-examination that
lastly, threat was given by respondent No.1-Brijesh about 15 days prior to the
occurrence. In the light of the same, even if it is so assumed, it is improbable
that Kulwant Singh and Shakuntla, being the parents of deceased Urjesh,
would have permitted Urjesh to accompany respondent No.1-Brijesh, on the
date of incident, particularly when, they were allegedly aware of the threats
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

15
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


extended by respondent No.1. However, no evidence has been brought on
record to establish that Shakuntla or Kulwant Singh had lodged any complaint
with the police, regarding the alleged beatings or threats extended by
respondent No.1. Also, Kulwant Singh, in his cross-examination admitted
that few months prior to the occurrence, in April 2000, he went to the house of
respondent No.1-Brijesh’s in-laws to perform ‘Kurta ceremony’ on the birth
of second child of respondent No.1. As such, strained relationship, to the
extent asserted, does not stand established and thus the motive, as such, is not

established.
22. As far as last seen evidence is concerned , learned counsel for the
appellant-State has argued that the respondents were last seen by PW-2
Mukesh and PW-15 Manjeet. The last seen theory comes into play where the
time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were
last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that the
possibility of any person, other than the accused, being the author of the crime
becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish
that the deceased was last seen with the accused, when there is a long gap and
the possibility of other persons coming in between exists. Reference in this
regard may be made to State of U.P. Vs. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114 .
Moreover, the witness who claims to have last seen the deceased in the
company of the accused must himself be reliable, and his version must be
clear as to the identity of the persons seen, the date and the time. It is in this
backdrop that the testimonies of PW-2 Mukesh and PW-15 Manjeet are to be
examined. The testimony of PW-2 Mukesh, who runs a dhaba on National
Highway No. 8, does not connect the respondents with the alleged
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

16
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


commission of the offence of murder. In his cross-examination, Mukesh
Kumar (PW-2) admitted that he was not previously acquainted with either
Brijesh (respondent No.1) or Satbir (respondent No.2) and that they had
remained at his dhaba for approximately half an hour. It has further come on
record that Mukesh Kumar (PW-2) had earlier sworn an affidavit before
appearing as PW-2 in the Court, stating that he did not know Brijesh
(respondent No.1) or Satbir (respondent No.2) and that no such persons had
ever visited his dhaba. Though, in his cross-examination he stated that the
affidavit Ex.DA was taken under pressure but he also admitted that he has
never made such complaint to the police regarding the affidavit, that it had
been taken under pressure. In the light of the same, the conduct of the
witness, is not above board and raises question mark about is credit
worthiness.
23. Further, the testimony of Manjeet (PW-15) also does not inspire
confidence as he stated that on 18.10.2000, at about 9:00 to 9:15 p.m., while
he was returning to Daulatabad from Gurgaon, he reached the railway
crossing, where he noticed a car bearing registration No. DL-4C-1598 parked
there. He further stated that Urjesh (deceased), respondent No.1- Brijesh and
another unidentified person were sitting in the car and consuming liquor. He
also deposed that both Urjesh-deceased and Brijesh (respondent No.1) used to
visit his atta chakki, prior to the occurrence, therefore, this Court finds that no
dispute can be found between the deceased Urjesh and respondent No.1-
Brijesh from the testimony of Manjeet (PW-15). Further, in his cross-
examination, Manjeet (PW-15) admitted that he had not noted down the
registration number of the said car. He further stated that he came to know
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

17
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


about the death of Urjesh through his family members on 19.10.2000 only and
he had visited the Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, but the Thanedar was not
available and, therefore, his statement could not be recorded. However, the
circumstances under which Manjeet (PW-15) was subsequently contacted by
the Investigating Officer and his statement came to be recorded, remained
unexplained. Therefore, as far as evidence of last seen is concerned, there is
material missing link in the prosecution case.
24. As far as is concerned, the prosecution
extra judicial confession
examined Surjit Singh PW-17 before whom Brijesh and Satbir (respondents
No.1 and 2) had gone on 27.10.2000 and confessed that they had committed
the murder of the deceased Urjesh, and sought his help in getting excluded
from the case. It is well settled that an extra judicial confession is generally a
weak piece of evidence and ordinarily no conviction can be based solely
thereupon, unless the same is corroborated in material particulars. Reference
in this regard may be made to Baldev Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3)
Criminal Court Cases 635 . At the same time, the evidentiary value of such a
confession depends upon the credibility of the witness before whom it is
stated to have been made. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8

SCC 180 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in
a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The
confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of
the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence depends
upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The
value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the
reliability of the witness, who gives the evidence. It is not open to
any Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

18
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the
nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was
made and the credibility of the witnesses, who speak to such a
confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction
can be founded thereon, if the evidence about the confession
comes from the mouth of witnesses, who appear to be unbiased,
not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of
whom nothing is brought out, which may tend to indicate that he
may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the
accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear,
unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is
perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness,
which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the
witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the
extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of
a conviction, if it passes the test of credibility.”

Tested on the aforesaid touchstone, the extra-judicial confession
allegedly made by the respondents-Brijesh and Satbir is unbelievable, as the
same was made in the presence of one Joginder who despite being material
witness, was not examined by the prosecution. Further, Surjit Singh (PW-17)
had no relatives in the police or anyone holding any political or official
position, who could have extended any help to respondents-Brijesh and Satbir.
It is also pertinent to mention that PW-17 Surjit Singh in his cross-
examination admitted that he is the cousin of complainant Kulwant Singh, on
whose supplementary statement respondent No.1-Brijesh was nominated as
accused. He is, thus, an interested witness. At the same time, it is well settled
that the testimony of a related or interested witness cannot be discarded
merely on that score. In Nallabothu Venkaiah Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2002(4) RCR (Criminal) 373 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

19
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


observed as under:-
“The test, in such circumstances, as correctly adopted by the
trial Court, is that if the witnesses are interested, the same must
be scrutinized with due care and caution in the light of the
medical evidence and other surrounding circumstances.
Animosity is double-edged sword and it can cut both sides. It can
be a ground for false implication. It can also be a ground for
assault.”

Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Mast Ram,
2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 401 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“The law on the point is well settled that the testimony of the
relative witnesses cannot be disbelieved on the ground of
relationship. The only main requirement is to examine their
testimony with caution. Their testimony was thrown out at the
threshold on the ground of animosity and relationship. This is not
the requirement of law.”

Thus, no hard and fast rule can be laid down for mechanical
rejection of evidence on the sole ground that the witness is related to the
victim or is otherwise interested in the prosecution version. The rule only
cautions the Court to scrutinize such testimony with greater care, in the
backdrop of the facts of each case. Tested on that anvil, and keeping in view
the requirement noticed in (supra) that the witness to an
Raja Ram’s case
extra judicial confession should appear to be unbiased, the testimony of Surjit
Singh does not inspire confidence. Apart from his relationship with Kulwant
Singh, the confession is stated to have been made in the presence of one
Joginder, who was not examined by the prosecution, and Surjit Singh was not
in a position to extend any help to the respondents, which renders it
ANIL KUMAR improbable that they would have approached him to confess the crime. Thus,
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

20
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


the extra judicial confession allegedly made to him cannot be relied upon.
25. As far as recoveries are concerned, learned State counsel
contended that the Trial Court discarded them merely because no independent
witness was joined. We are conscious that the absence of an independent
witness is not, by itself, fatal to a recovery. In the present case, however, the
recoveries suffer from more basic infirmities. The string (rope) is stated to
have been recovered at the instance of respondent No.1-Brijesh in the
presence of Kulwant Singh (PW-14). As noticed above, this is the same
witness who named Brijesh in a supplementary statement. He cannot be
regarded as an independent attesting witness. As for the chappals, one chappal
from the pair was recovered from the spot on 19.10.2000 itself by SHO Fateh
Singh (PW-18) vide memo Ex. PB. The other chappal from the pair is claimed
to have been found underneath the passenger seat of the car, which was
recovered at the instance of the respondent No.1-Brijesh after his arrest.
Although the registration number of the car was known to the police, no step
was taken to seize it promptly, and the delay of several days remains
unexplained. The Ex. PG also carries overwriting about the colour of the
chappal. The chappal recovered is of a common pattern, easily available in the
market, and none of the recovered articles were sent for the FSL to connect it
with the occurrence. In these circumstances, the recoveries are not a reliable
link in the chain.
26. It is trite law that an Appellate Court, while dealing with an
appeal against acquittal, must be slow to interfere unless the judgment is
perverse or suffers from gross illegality.
27. Given the cumulative effect to the above discrepancies and
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

21
CRA-D-789-DBA-2004


missing link, in the chain of evidence, the motive also does not stand
established and the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court, had correctly extended the benefit of
doubt to the accused-respondents.
28. Thus, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned
judgment, which warrants interference. Resultantly, the instant appeal, being
devoid of merits, stands dismissed.

29. The pending misc. applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.


(ARCHANA PURI) (HARMEET SINGH DEOL)
JUDGE JUDGE


November 11, 2026.
anil

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether reportable : Yes
ANIL KUMAR
2026.11.11 14:10
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document