Parveen Son Of Satbir vs State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
329 CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
Reserved on: 28.09.2026
Pronounced on: 05.11.2026
Uploaded on: 10.11.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Parveen
… Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
… Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PUJA CHOPRA
Present: Mr. Manoj K. Tanwar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.
*
PUJA CHOPRA, J.
Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment
dated 06.05.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani,
whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Sections 302, 364
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC & ST Act’) and sentenced
vide order dated 06.05.2014 as follows:-
Offence under Section Imprisonme Fine In default of fine
nt imprisonment
₹
302 IPC RI for life Imprisonment of 06
3,000/-
months
₹
Imprisonment of 04
2,000/-
months
364 IPC RI for 07
years
RI for life ₹ Imprisonment of 06
3,000/-

months
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-2-
All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.04.2013, SI/SHO
Japan Singh, along with Police party, was present at Bus Stand, Kusumbhi, in
connection with patrolling and crime detection duty on a Government vehicle
bearing registration No. HR-61-9823. In the meantime, ASI Hari Ballabh,
Incharge, Police Post Jui Kalan, along with ASI Mahender Singh, arrived there.
Meanwhile, Rajpal son of Lal Chand, caste Chamar, came there and submitted
a written complaint (Ex.P12), wherein he alleged that he is a resident of village
Devsar and does labour work. On 16.04.2013, at about 9:00 p.m., he received
information that his son Jaimal, aged about 17 years, had been taken away by
Parveen @ Lala son of Satbir, caste Rajput, resident of Devsar (present
appellant), in a vehicle. Thereafter, he along with his brother Ram Kishan,
followed the said vehicle. On making ample search, he found that on the
Dinod-Kusumbhi road within the area of village Kusumbhi, Parveen, with the
help of ‘K’ son of Bijender, caste Dhanak, resident of Devsar, was making his
son Jaimal sit on the driver's seat of a white car bearing registration No.HR-
51AH-7099, the front portion of which was in a damaged condition. However,
on seeing them, Parveen and ‘K’ (juvenile) fled from the spot. Thereafter,
when the complainant checked his son by touching, he found that he had died.
They continued searching for Parveen and ‘K’ but all in vain. Said Parveen
was having a grudge due to an earlier incident relating to Elephant Nikasi due
to which Parveen, with the help of ‘K’, had murdered his son Jaimal by
breaking his leg and inflicting serious injuries upon him.
2.1 On the basis of the said complaint (Ex.P12) submitted by the
complainant-Rajpal, FIR No. 257 dated 17.04.2013, under Sections 302/34
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-3-
IPC and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act was registered at Police Station Sadar
Bhiwani (Ex.P31).
2.2 During the course of investigation, a rough site plan (Ex.P13/A)
and a scaled site plan (Ex.P28) of the place of occurrence were prepared.
Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded, and the
accused were arrested. Blood, vomit and car bearing registration No.HR-51-
AH-7099 were taken into police possession vide recovery memo (Ex.P4). Post-
mortem examination of the dead body of Jaimal was got conducted, and the
post-mortem report (Ex.P33) was prepared. Disclosure statements (Ex.P5 and
Ex.P7) of accused Parveen alias Lala and disclosure statements (Ex.P6 and
Ex.P8) of co-accused ‘K’ were recorded, pursuant to which a rope and a piece
of white cloth, allegedly used by the accused in the commission of the crime,
were recovered at their instance and taken into police possession vide recovery
memo (Ex.P9). The Investigating Officer also prepared a site plan (Ex.P29) of
the place of recovery. The accused further got demarcated the place of
occurrence where they had allegedly caused the death of Jaimal by tying him
to a tree with the help of a rope and a piece of cloth. In this regard, pointing-
out memo (Ex.P10) was prepared by the Investigating Officer.
2.3 After completion of investigation, challan was present before
learned Illaqa Magistrate and vide order dated 12.08.2013, the case was
committed by learned ACJM, Bhiwani to the Court of Sessions. After finding a
prima facie case, the accused was chargesheeted under Sections 302, 364 IPC
and Section 3 of the SC & ST Act by learned Sessions Court to which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The case qua co-accused ‘K’ was
sent to Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Bhiwani by the learned
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-4-
Illaqa Magistrate vide his order dated 08.08.2013 and said co-accused ‘K’ was
tried separately being a juvenile.
2.4 In the present case, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses
and also produced documentary evidence on record. Thereafter, statement of
appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the
accused/appellant pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused examined
Raj Kishan @ Raja Sarpanch as DW1 and tendered document Ex.DX in his
defence. No other evidence was led by accused/appellant.
3. After appreciating facts and circumstances of the case, evidence
on record, statements of parties, and hearing the arguments of counsel for the
respective parties, learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under
Sections 302, 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced as
aforesaid.
4. L earned counsel for appellant has argued that the case is based on
circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness account of death of
deceased Jaimal. The prosecution has not been able to establish a complete
chain of circumstances so as to infer that the appellant is the culprit of the
crime alleged against him. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence
properly, and the appellant has not been connected to the crime. There is
unexplained delay in registration of FIR and the conduct of witnesses is
unnatural and the witnesses are liable to be disbelieved. Learned counsel for
appellant has also argued that the defence evidence is also entitled to equal
weight as is given to prosecution evidence and relies on the judgement passed
by this Court in Malkit Singh versus State of Punjab, 2006 SCC OnLine
P&H 1085 , wherein it was held that credibility and trustworthiness ought to be
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-5-
attributed to defence witnesses at par with that of prosecution. Learned counsel
for appellant further argued that the police started the investigation even prior
to registration of the FIR and the FIR was registered subsequently and no
independent witness from locality was joined at the time of alleged disclosures
or recoveries which are tainted. The appellant has not been connected to the
car in question allegedly used in the crime. Learned counsel for appellant has
also argued that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes
significance, and in the present case, the prosecution has not been able to
establish motive for the crime.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel has supported the judgement
passed by learned trial Court and has argued that the prosecution has
successfully established its case against the appellant and no interference is
called for in the findings returned by learned trial Court as the entire evidence,
oral and documentary, has been duly appreciated by learned trial Court and all
the arguments as raised by learned counsel for appellant have also been dealt
with
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
able assistance has gone through the record of the case as also the judgement
passed by learned trial Court.
7. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case of the
prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances alleged by
prosecution against the appellant are briefly enumerated as under:
I. Complainant Rajpal (PW4) was informed on 16.04.2013 at about
9:00 PM that his son Jaimal had been taken by Parveen @ Lala in a vehicle;
II. The appellant and his co-accused ‘K’ (juvenile) were last seen by
complainant Rajpal (PW4) and his brother Ram Kishan (PW5) when the
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-6-
appellant with the assistance of co-accused ‘K’ was making Jaimal sit on the
driver seat of white car bearing registration No.HR-51-AH-7099, and on
seeing the complainant and his brother, the accused fled from the spot;
III. The car used in crime was found in broken condition. Jaimal was
found dead with injuries on his person and was found sitting on driver seat
with head on steering wheel;
IV. According to PW17, Jagmohan, the car HR-51-AH-7099 was
taken on rent by appellant from him on 16.04.2013 by saying that his brother
was ill and when PW17 tried to contact the appellant on phone, his mobile was
switched off;
V. According to crime scene report (Ex.P30), the expert opined that
the body of deceased Jaimal was found deliberately fixed on the steering of the
car in such a way that it gave the look that someone was driving the car. PW12
Dr. Ravinder Pal, Senior Scientific Officer, observed that deep rooted
conspiracy behind motive could not be ruled out, and it was not a clear case of
roadside accident;
VI. Pursuant to disclosure statements made by appellant and his co-
accused ‘K’ (Ex.P7 & Ex.P8), rope and cloth used by accused in commission
of crime were recovered, which were taken in Police possession vide recovery
Memo (Ex.P9) and site plan (Ex.P29) of the place of recovery was prepared by
IO. The said cloth and rope were used for tying the deceased Jaimal to the
Pahari neem tree, whereafter accident was made with car and injuries were
caused, which were later projected as a case of accident;
VII. Accused got demarcated the place of occurrence where they had
caused death of Jaimal by tying him with the Pahari neem tree with the help of
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-7-
rope and cloth and hit him with the car, causing injuries to him. The pointing
memo was Ex.P10;
VIII. Later the accused put Jaimal in the dickey of the car and left the
car along with Jaimal on Dinod-Kusumbhi road by making the deceased sit on
the driver seat of the car to make it look like an accident; and
IX. The motive for crime was the incident of Elephant Nikasi due to
which Jaimal was murdered by accused who were nursing a grudge against
him.
8. In cases of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance.
According to complainant, as mentioned in his complaint, the motive for the
occurrence was previous grudge pertaining to incident of Elephant Nikasi. In
fact, the episode relied upon by prosecution was that the marriage of son of
Ram Kishan (PW5) was to be solemnized and in that marriage they wanted to
celebrate the marriage by Nikasi ceremony on Elephant but the accused and his
family did not allow that. However, Ram Kishan (PW5), in his examination-in-
chief, stated that he did not know how and why his nephew was killed. In other
words, he said nothing about the grudge of Elephant Nikasi. Furthermore,
charge sheet (Ex.DX) was produced on record in defence pertaining to case
FIR No.514 dated 04.12.2011 registered at the instance of Ram Kishan,
complainant in the said FIR, to the effect that persons named therein did not
allow Nikasi of his son on Elephant on 04.12.2011. The name of appellant was
not found in the said FIR and he was not involved in that case at all. No
charges were framed against the appellant in that case/FIR registered at the
instance of PW5 Ram Kishan who, as mentioned above, did not attribute that
grudge to the appellant or his co-accused. Furthermore, the occurrence in
present case took place on 16.04.2013 and it is not believable that the incident
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-8-
of Elephant Nikasi, which happened a long time ago on 04.12.2011, had any
relation to the present occurrence, particularly when the main aggrieved
person, i.e. PW5 Ram Kishan, whose son’s marriage was the main reason for
dispute of Elephant Nikasi ceremony, had no grudge against the appellant and
no untoward incident took place in the intervening period of around one and
half year.
9. The issue of caste which is alleged as the main reason for dispute,
is also not established in this case. The prosecution alleged that the crime was
committed by the appellant with the assistance of co-accused ‘K’. The grouse
being that the appellant belonged to Rajput community while the complainant
and deceased Jaimal belonged to Chamar community, the dispute started with
the ceremony of Elephant Nikasi in the year 2011. It is apposite to mention
here that the friend of appellant, i.e. co-accused ‘K’, himself belonged to
Dhanak community and thus he himself belonged to Scheduled Caste.
Strangely in the previous disclosure statement of appellant (Ex.P5), the motive,
as mentioned in the complaint, was changed and it was mentioned in the said
disclosure statement that the appellant had love affair with the sister of Jaimal
and had bad intentions qua his sister which was opposed by Jaimal and the
same was alleged as the motive for crime in the disclosure statement. The
Elephant Nikasi was not mentioned as motive of occurrence in the alleged
disclosure statement. This motive in the first disclosure statement of appellant
(Ex.P5) is contradictory to the alleged motive mentioned in the complaint. If
appellant was having an affair with the sister of deceased then obviously caste
was not an issue. Be that as it may, the prosecution has not been able to
establish either of the motives, both of which were contradictory to each other.
No witness of the said relationship or advances made by appellant towards
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-9-
sister of deceased Jaimal was proved on record and thus the earlier disclosure
statements of appellant and his co-accused (Ex.P5 & Ex.P6) were discarded as
false disclosures and subsequent disclosures (Ex.P7 & Ex.P8) were put forth
by prosecution as having been made by the appellant and his co-accused. Even
otherwise, the alleged motive of love affair of the appellant with sister of
deceased was not mentioned in the complaint given by complainant (PW4) nor
PW4 & PW5 supported such a theory when they stepped into the witness box.
The crime scene report (Ex.P30) mentions that the father of
deceased/complainant (PW4) stated to Dr. Ravinder Pal (PW12) that his son
had been killed due to old grouse. However, the nature of grouse was not
mentioned or disclosed to PW12. The incident of Elephant Nikasi, which has
been mentioned in the complaint, was also not disclosed to PW12. Rather,
vague allegation was made by complainant regarding old grudge which has not
been proved by the prosecution. Even the names of appellant and his co-
accused ‘K’, against whom allegation of last seen was made, or the manner in
which accused were seen putting the body of deceased in the car, were not
disclosed to Dr. Ravinder Pal (PW12), which shows that the same was an
afterthought.
10. In Nandu Singh v. State of M.P., (2022) 19 SCC 301 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has held:-
“9. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great
significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the
case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of
prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence
of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely
weighs in favour of the accused.
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-10-
10. In Anwar Ali v. State of H.P . [Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10
SCC 166 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 395], this Court made the legal position
clear in the following words : (SCC p. 190, para 24)
“24. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that
in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the
motive and therefore the accused deserves acquittal is concerned, it is
true that the absence of proving the motive cannot be a ground to reject
the prosecution case. It is also true and as held by this Court in Suresh
Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of
Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 60] that if motive is
proved that would supply a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence
but the absence thereof cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution
case. However, at the same time, as observed by this Court in Babu
[Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri)
1179], absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial
evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. In paras 25
and 26, it is observed and held as under: (Babu case [Babu v. State of
Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179] , SCC pp. 200-
201) xxx
25. In State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [State of U.P. v. Kishanpal,
(2008) 16 SCC 73: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 182], this Court examined the
importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence and observed:
(SCC pp. 87-88, paras 38-39)
“38. … the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the
accused themselves and it is not possible for the prosecution to
explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the
particular crime.
39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is
relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and
unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the
accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very
strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its
importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is
available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for
the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be
convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-11-
same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the
evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or
inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.”
26. This Court has also held that the absence of motive in a case
depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour
of the accused. (Vide Pannayar v. State of T.N. [Pannayar v. State of
T.N., (2009) 9 SCC 152 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 638 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
1480] )”
11. The unnatural conduct of witnesses, PW4 complainant Rajpal and
PW5 Ram Kishan, is also not worthy of credence and it affects the credibility
of witnesses. According to prosecution, the complainant was informed on
16.04.2013 at about 9:00 PM that his son was taken by appellant and, as per
the complaint, the complainant and his brother Ram Kishan followed the
vehicle and after ample search, the complainant and his brother found that in
the area of village Kusumbhi on Dinod-Kusumbhi road, the appellant and his
co-accused ‘K’ were making Jaimal sit on the driver seat of a white car and
after seeing the complainant and his brother fled away from the spot. Further,
as per complaint, complainant even checked his son Jaimal by touching with
hand and found him dead, with injuries. Despite the same, the complainant and
his brother did not inform the police. Rather, they just left the dead body of son
of complainant (PW4) in the same position in the car and went home and did
nothing further till next day when FIR was registered at 6:15 PM on
17.04.2013 (police proceedings recorded at 5:30 PM). In cross-examination,
PW4 complainant Rajpal stated that his brother Ram Kishan is having truck,
Tata vehicle and small loading vehicles and that he and his brother Ram
Kishan searched for his son Jaimal in Tata four wheeler driven by Ram Kishan
PW5. Ram Kishan stated that his brother Rajpal came to his house on
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-12-
16.04.2013 at about 9:00 PM and asked him that Jaimal was not in the house
and thereafter they left the house in search of Jaimal. PW5 did not state that
complainant had informed him that appellant had taken the deceased Jaimal in
his car at around 9:00 PM. Rather, PW5 stated that at 9:00 PM, Rajpal came to
his house by stating that Jaimal was not in house and they started searching for
Jaimal. PW5 also did not state that they saw accused making Jaimal sit in the
car on the driver seat. He merely stated that they noticed a white colour car and
saw two boys coming out from that car. His brother asked him to throw light.
Accused ‘K’ and Parveen belong to his village. His brother merely asked him
to check the vehicle and they found Jaimal in the car who was dead at that
time. The examination-in-chief of PW5 is as under:-
“Stated that Jaimal since deceased was my nephew. On 16.04.2013 at
about 09.00 p.m. My brother Raj Pal came in my house and asked me
Jaimal was not in the house. Thereafter, we left the house in search of
Jaimal. We kept on searching Jaimal. While searching Jaimal, we
reached on Dinod- Kusumbhi road. We noticed a white colour car and
we saw two boys coming out from that car. My brother asked me
through light. Accused Kuldeep and Parveen who belongs to my
village. He asked me to check the vehicle. We found Jaimal in that car
and we checked him and he was dead at that time. We stopped our
vehicle there and kept standing and after sun rise, Raja Ram Sarpanch
of village Kusambhi reached there and he informed the police.
Thereafter, police came there and took into possession blood and
vomit and car bearing registration no. HR-51AH-7099 vide recovery
memo Ex.P4 and the same was attested by me. I do not know how and
why my nephew was killed. Today accused Parveen is present in the
Court.”
12. The said statement of PW5 completely demolishes the case of the
prosecution as mentioned in the complaint. PW5 has given a different version
than one mentioned in the complaint. PW5 also stated that he has a mobile
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-13-
No.9992620485 and also Tata 407 vehicle. He also stated that the police came
at the spot at about 7:00 AM. He stated in examination-in-chief that the police
came there and took into possession blood, vomit and car vide recovery memo
Ex.P4, which was attested by me. But, in cross-examination, he stated that he
remained at spot upto 2:00 PM, meaning thereby Ex.P4 was executed prior to
registration of FIR. PW11 DSP Virender Singh, stated that on 17.04.2013 on
receipt of message of SI/SHO Japan Singh, he visited the spot. Accused
Praveen and ‘K’ were produced before him by Sanjay resident of village
Devsar and he arrested both the accused. However, witness Sanjay was not
examined by prosecution. In cross-examination, he stated that he received
message about occurrence in the evening time as he was out of station on that
day and he reached the spot at 7:00/7:30 PM. Police came to know about this
occurrence at about 8:00/9:00 AM. Accused were produced before him at 9:00
PM. No recovery was affected after the first disclosure statement of accused.
13. On the other hand, the statement of defence witness DW1 Raj
Kishan @ Raja Sarpanch and even Police officials as discussed herein below,
reveals that the dead body was discovered in the car on the road by DW1 who
thereupon informed the police. After the police reached the spot and other
locals gathered at the spot, the complainant and his brother reached the spot
having received information from the Police. If the complainant and his
brother had been looking for accused, who is stated to have taken Jaimal as per
information received by complainant, and in fact Jaimal was found in injured
condition and dead by complainant and his brother, as alleged, it is not
acceptable that PW4 & PW5 went home and did nothing thereafter, and did not
inform the Police or any other person. During cross-examination, complainant
(PW4) stated that he was having mobile No.9034761048. However, even then,
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-14-
the police was not informed telephonically. It cannot be overlooked that PW4
complainant was none other than the father of deceased, and it is not
imaginable that he would leave his son in that condition and go home and do
nothing about it. More so, when he was allegedly being accompanied by his
brother, who also did not inform the police. This conduct is very unnatural and
casts serious doubt on the version of the complainant given in the complaint.
14. Regarding veracity of a witness against normal human behaviour,
in Rathinam v. State of T.N., (2011) 11 SCC 140 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held:-
“47. With great respect to the Division Bench, we differ
with the rather broad proposition highlighted above. It must
be remembered that the best check on the veracity of a
witness is the test of normal human behaviour. To our mind,
if the behaviour of a witness is unnatural and grossly against
normal human conduct that itself is a strong circumstance in
doubting the story projected by him...”
15. The delay in registration of FIR and the fact that investigation
started even before registration of FIR is fatal to prosecution. Delay in FIR
results in embellishments and improvements due to which the original version
is withheld from scrutiny of Court and the benefit of the same has to be given
to the accused. In Sekaran v. State of T.N., (2024) 2 SCC 176 , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held:-
“ 14. We start with the FIR, to which exception has been taken by the
appellant urging that there has been no satisfactory explanation for its
belated registration. It is trite that merely because there is some delay
in lodging an FIR, the same by itself and without anything more ought
not to weigh in the mind of the courts in all cases as fatal for the
prosecution. A realistic and pragmatic approach has to be adopted,
RAJAN
keeping in mind the peculiarities of each particular case, to assess
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-15-
whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is an afterthought to
give a coloured version of the incident, which is sufficient to corrode
the credibility of the prosecution version.
15. In cases where delay occurs, it has to be tested on the anvil of
other attending circumstances. If on an overall consideration of all
relevant circumstances it appears to the court that the delay in lodging
the FIR has been explained, mere delay cannot be sufficient to
disbelieve the prosecution case; however, if the delay is not
satisfactorily explained and it appears to the court that cause for the
delay had been necessitated to frame anyone as an accused, there is no
reason as to why the delay should not be considered as fatal forming
part of several factors to vitiate the conviction. ”
16. As aforesaid, the crime scene report (Ex.P30) mentions that father
of deceased/complainant (PW4) stated to Dr. Ravinder Pal (PW12) that his son
had been killed due to old grouse. However, the nature of grouse was not
mentioned or disclosed to PW12. The incident of Elephant Nikasi, which has
been mentioned in the complaint, was also not disclosed to PW12. Even the
names of appellant and his co-accused ‘K’, who was last seen with deceased,
or the manner in which accused were seen putting the body of deceased in the
car, were not disclosed to Dr. Ravinder Pal (PW12).
17. According to complainant Rajpal (PW4), he got information on
16.04.2013 at about 9:00 PM that his son had been taken by appellant
(Parveen), but FIR (Ex.P31) was registered on 17.04.2013. There is no time
mentioned as to when the written application was given by complainant on
17.04.2013 to Police. The time mentioned in Police proceedings (Ex.P32) is
5:30 PM on 17.04.2023 and it is clearly mentioned in the Police proceedings
that SI/SHO Japan Singh was present with his Police team near bus stand
Kusumbhi where ASI Hari Ballabh, Incharge Police Post Jui Kalan and ASI
Mahender Singh 215 came. In the meantime, Rajpal came and moved written
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-16-
application before SI/SHO. As per FIR, information was received at Police
Station at 6:15 PM and DDR entry No.25 was also made at 6:15 PM. PW12
Dr. Ravinder Pal stated in his cross-examination that he went to spot on
17.04.2013 at about 12:15 PM and DSP Virender Singh was present at the spot.
PW2 Constable Joginder Singh stated that he went to the spot at about
4:00/5:00 PM and when he went to the spot, at that time, SHO, PS Bhiwani
and police officials of Police Jui Kalan were already present there. Many
public persons including family members of deceased and complainant were
already present at the spot. PW3 retired SI/SHO Japan Singh during his cross-
examination stated that he left the police station at about 4 PM. He went to bus
stand Kusumbhi. After going to bus stand Dinod, he reached at bus stand
Kusumbhi at about 4:30 PM. 15/20 minutes prior to that ASI Hari Ballabh
informed me that a dead body was lying in revenue estate of village Kusumbhi
and murder had been committed. According to PW3, he stopped at bus stand
Kusumbhi up to 5:30 PM. ASI Hari Ballabh came after five minutes of his
reaching and in the meantime, complainant Rajpal also came there. 10/15
persons were present at the spot at that time. He stayed at spot for about one
hour. DSP reached at spot at about 9:00 PM in his presence.
18. According to DW1 Raj Karan @ Raja Sarpanch, on 17.04.2013, at
about 6:00 AM, he was present at his house in Village Kusumbhi, where he
was informed by some villagers about abandoned car in accidental condition
near his fields on the main road, wherein a person was lying on driver seat with
his head on the steering wheel of the car. When DW1 reached the spot, many
villagers also gathered there. Thereafter, DW1 informed ASI Hari Ballabh of
Police Post Jui Kalan through his mobile number, and after sometime he
reached at the spot. ASI Hari Ballabh informed SHO Police Station, Sadar
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-17-
Bhiwani and other Senior police officers also reached at the spot. The police
took into possession one diary from the pocket of the person who was lying
dead in the car and informed his family members after knowing the mobile
numbers from the diary. Thereafter, family members of deceased reached at the
spot at about 10:00 PM. The father and uncle of deceased along with other
persons of Village Devsar reached the spot and told Police that they did not
know how the deceased had died. This testimony of DW1 has been rejected by
learned trial Court on the wrong premise that DW1 could not tell the name of
the person who had been informed by Police on telephone or the name of
father and uncle of deceased and other family members of deceased who
reached the spot. Learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the testimony of
DW1, whereas the same was most natural. It is not the case of prosecution that
DW1 was personally known to the family of deceased or had any personal
interest in the matter. DW1 was an independent witness near whose fields the
dead body was found in the car. Therefore, the sequence of events narrated by
DW1 are natural and he was not expected to know the names of family of
deceased.
19. The testimony of DW1 was wrongly rejected by learned trial
Court even though the version of DW1 has been corroborated by ASI Hari
Ballabh (PW1). According to PW1, he received information about the dead
body lying at spot at about 12:30 PM on 17.04.2013 through Raja Sarpanch of
Village Kusumbhi on his mobile number and he simultaneously informed the
SHO. They found 5/7 persons present at the spot when they reached there
including Raja Sarpanch and SHO started investigation of the case. He also
further stated that complainant Rajpal, Ram Kishan, Veer Bhan and other
persons of Village Devsar came to spot after one hour of their reaching at spot
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-18-
on being informed by SHO Police Station Sadar Bhiwani to reach at the spot.
Even, PW9 Photographer Aman stated that he had gone to the spot at
9:00/10:00 AM. PW11 DSP Virender Singh also stated that the police came to
know about the occurrence at about 8:00/9:00 AM. PW12 Dr. Ravinder Pal
also stated that on 17.04.2013, he went to spot at about 12.15 PM. Thus, there
is not only delay in registration of the FIR, but even the investigation started
prior to the registration of FIR due to which this Court finds that enough time
was gained by prosecution to deliberate and fabricate a story with a view to
falsely implicating the accused as mentioned in the complaint. The story of last
seen is, thus, rejected.
20. In the inquest report dated 17.04.2013 (Ex.P15), prepared by
SI/SHO Japan Singh, the date and hour of discovery of death is stated to be
5:00 PM, which is contrary to evidence on record. The two witnesses, who
identified the dead body as per inquest report, are mentioned as Vijay and Veer
Bhan, both of whom have not been examined by prosecution. Thus, the
judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in Malkiat Singh v.
The State of Punjab, 2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 626 is fully applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
21. All these facts have been brushed aside by learned trial Court in
the name of minor discrepancies, which is not the correct position. The
aforesaid discrepancies affect the core prosecution case and change the entire
narrative which makes this Court believe that the earlier version regarding
discovery of dead body and facts pertaining to investigation were suppressed
and distorted by prosecution.
22. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra,
(2010) 13 SCC 657 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-19-
“30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take
into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been
of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor
contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements
on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case
should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.
The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form
an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate
court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the
same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan
[(2008) 17 SCC 587: (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580 : AIR 2009 SC
152] .) xxx
32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if
found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving
and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses
may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in
conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the
statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that
the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [(2009) 11 SCC 334 :
(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1352] ) xxx
34. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 593 : AIR 1981 SC 1390], while dealing with this issue,
this Court observed as under: (SCC p. 754, para 8).
“ 8. … In the depositions of witnesses there are always
normal discrepancies however honest and truthful they may be.
These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation,
normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental
disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence,
and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not
normal, and not expected of a normal person.”
35. The courts have to label the category to which a
discrepancy belongs. While normal discrepancies do not corrode
the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. (See
Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 601: (2007) 1 SCC
(Cri) 34: AIR 2006 SC 2908] and Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15
SCC 590: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130: AIR 2009 SC 331].)”
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-20-
23. The disclosure statements made by accused/appellant as alleged
by prosecution also create a dent in the version of prosecution and are liable to
be disbelieved. According to previous disclosure statements of both the
appellant as well as co-accused ‘K’ dated 18.04.2013 (Ex.P5 & Ex.P6,
respectively), firstly, alcohol was administered to Jaimal and then his death
was caused by tying with tree and hitting with car. However, the FSL report
does not mention any alcohol being present in the body of deceased Jaimal.
Interestingly, a liquor bottle had been found in the car as mentioned in report
of PW12 Dr. Ravinder Pal, probably, this finding in the crime scene report
(Ex.P30) triggered the prosecution to propel the story of administration of
liquor to deceased before his murder by the accused which finds mention in the
alleged earlier disclosure statements of appellant and his co-accused. As per
FSL report (Ex.P2), ethyl alcohol could not be detected in Exhibit 2 (black
coloured dried earthy and vegetative material) and Exhibit 3 (in brief, cut and
torn, blue colour T-shirt stained with yellowish dried material, bluish grey,
gents underwear, cut and torn brown coloured gents, pant, stained with
brownish material and yellowish dried material). As discussed above, the
motive of love affair in previous disclosure statements has also been
disbelieved by this Court. Moreover, nothing was recovered pursuant to earlier
disclosure statements dated 18.04.2013 (Ex.P5 & Ex.P6) and were discarded as
having been falsely made. However, these circumstances have been wrongly
appreciated by learned trial Court, which held, “ it shows the plan of the
accused to administer the liquor to the deceased had he not been overpowered
by them for causing his death. But need might have not arisen to administer
the liquor because they caused the death of the deceased after tying him with
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-21-
the tree, and thereafter they hit him with the car, which accused brought from
Jagmohan (PW17) .” This version mentioned by learned trial Court that the
need not having arisen to administer alcohol due to overpowering by accused
is not supported by any evidence and is merely fanciful and based on
conjectures and surmises. Conversely, if alcohol was not administered then
deceased would be conscious at time of alleged tying to the tree, but no marks
of struggle being visible have been noted in Ex.P30. Only tyre prints going
towards tree are noticed which probablizes the argument of learned counsel for
the appellant that it was a case of blind murder at some other place and then
the same was given the shape of accident as per crime report Ex.P30. But
accused/appellant has no role in the same.
24. The recovery of cloth and rope at the instance of appellant and his
co-accused ‘K’ pursuant to subsequent disclosure statements (Ex.P7 & Ex.P8)
is doubtful. There is nothing extraordinary about the cloth or rope which have
no special identification or mark and are easily available articles. Furthermore,
the cloth and rope were not exhibited in the Court. Learned trial Court has
wrongly relied upon the recovery memo (Ex.P9) without the articles being
produced in Court. In fact, the place from where the recovery was allegedly
effected is a public place and the appellant was not in exclusive possession
thereof. Even the ownership of articles has not been proved. Even otherwise,
the investigation is tainted due to reasons mentioned above.
25. On another ground also, the disclosure statement of appellant
(Ex.P7) is liable to be discarded. In fact, nothing has been recovered pursuant
to previous disclosure statements of appellant and his co-accused ‘K’ (Ex.P5 &
Ex.P6). Ex.P5 & Ex.P6, both dated 18.04.2013, were allegedly made
simultaneously to the same effect that Parveen (appellant) had love affair with
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-22-
the sister of deceased Jaimal by hide and seek and was having bad intention on
her, which fact came to knowledge of deceased Jaimal and that liquor was
served to Jaimal before murdering him by tying him to tree and causing
accident. Both the disclosure statements were later stated to have been falsely
made by both accused who again made another set of simultaneous disclosures
(Ex.P7 and Ex.P8) on 19.04.2013, pursuant to which cloth and rope were
recovered at the instance of both accused simultaneously which were then
taken in police custody vide memo Ex.P9. Furthermore, no independent public
witness to the said disclosures (Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P7 & Ex.P8) was joined by
the investigating agency. In later disclosures, Ex.P7 & Ex.P8, the appellant and
his co-accused did not mention specific role played by accused or any use of
cloth, which was allegedly recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements.
Vide recovery memo (Ex.P9) dated 19.04.2013, both the accused, pursuant to
their respective disclosure statements in police custody, allegedly got
recovered one white torn cloth and one rope of ‘SUT’ from the canal bridge of
Malwa near bank of canal from bushes. The cloth was 2 feet in length and rope
was 10’10” in length. They already had the rope to tie allegedly the accused,
the need for cloth was not explained by any of the accused in the alleged
disclosures. No evidence was led and no expert witness measured the diameter
of tree with which the deceased Jaimal is alleged to have been tied to compare
it with the length of rope and the use of cloth in case rope was short. No
specific use of cloth is forthcoming. Both the disclosures, Ex.P7 & Ex.P8, do
not state specifically as to the role played by each of the accused and the
disclosures mechanically and separately mention that accused committed the
murder without mentioning who held the accused or who drove the car or what
role was played by the accused. The veracity of disclosures is, thus, doubtful.
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-23-
Such mechanical disclosures point towards padding provided by prosecution to
connect the accused to crime and are thus liable to be discarded. Ex.P7, Ex.P8
& Ex.P9, i.e. disclosure statements of the appellant and co-accused
respectively and recovery memo, were witnessed by ASI Hari Ballabh and ASI
Mahinder Singh 215, and prepared by DSP Bhiwani. ASI Mahinder Singh was
given up by the prosecution and was not examined. In fact, ASI Mahinder
Singh was an additional witness in subsequent disclosure statements (Ex.P7 &
Ex.P8) and recovery memo (Ex.P9) and the previous disclosure statments
(Ex.P5 & Ex.P6) which were later stated to have been falsely made, were not
witnessed by ASI Mahinder Singh. Thus, non-examination of ASI Mahinder
Singh qua subsequent disclosures and recovery discredits the subsequent
disclosure statements and recovery pursuant thereto.
26. Further, DSP Virender Singh (PW11) gave wrong date of second
disclosure statements of accused which, according to him were suffered on
18.04.2013. In fact, the second disclosure statements were on 19.04.2013. He
also admitted in cross- examination that it is correct that there is overwriting at
point A in Ex.P7. Self stated that this document relates to 19.04.2013. It is
apposite to mention here that earlier disclosure statements were dated
18.04.2013 and subsequent disclosure statements were dated 19.04.2013. He
also stated the place of recovery was bushes near the canal and was an open
place and the place was accessible to all.
27. Now, the place where the car in question along with dead body
was found was already in the knowledge of investigating agency. Ex.P4 is the
recovery memo dated 17.04.2013 pertaining to blood vomiting and car bearing
No.HR-51-AH-7099, wherein the dead body of Jaimal was lying on driver seat
stained with blood and vomiting. Further, the tree with which the alleged
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-24-
collision of car was made was also in the knowledge of prosecution, which is
evident from site plan Ex.PW13/A dated 17.04.2013. Thus, the pointing memo
Ex.P10 dated 29.04.2013 is of no relevance as the place where the offence was
committed was already in the knowledge of investigating agency. Ex.P10 was
memo of demarcation dated 29.04.2013 prepared by DSP Virender Singh and
witnessed by ASI Hari Ballabh and ASI Mahender Singh 215. This memo of
demarcation of place of occurrence where Jaimal after tying with rope and
cloth with a tree of Pahari Neem, situated at Dinod-Kusumbhi road, was hit by
accused with a vehicle. However, Ex.P13/A is rough site plan which was
prepared by SI/SHO Japan Singh, PS Sadar, Bhiwani on 17.04.2013, wherein
Mark A is shown as place where Jaimal was murdered after tying with rope
with a tree and hit by car. In crime detail report, Ex.P-13A (also marked as
Ex.P13/A) dated 17.04.2013, prepared by SI/SHO Japan Singh, witnessed by
ASI Mahender Singh and ASI Hari Ballabh, the tree where the alleged
occurrence took place has been mentioned.
28. In view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the
pointing memo (Ex.P10) is inadmissible in evidence as no new fact pursuant
thereto was discovered. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to connect the
accused with the crime scene, i.e. Pahari Neem tree area where collision is
stated to have been caused. No independent witness to pointing memo
(Ex.P10) was joined by prosecution. According to PW1 Hari Ballabh, PW3
Investigating Officer Japan Singh, PW11 DSP Virender Singh and even DW1
Raja Sarpanch, many persons had gathered at the spot but despite the
availability of public persons, none was joined during the course of
investigation.
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-25-
29. Dr. Mahesh Kumar, Medical Officer (PW18), proved the
postmortem report (Ex.P33). Postmortem examination was conducted on
18.04.2013 at 10:30 am at Government Hospital, Bhiwani by him along with
Dr. Kulwant Phogat. The dead body was brought by ASI Mahender Singh 215
Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani. The body was identified by Vijay Kumar and
Veer Bhan. Both Vijay Kumar and Veer Bhan were given up by prosecution
and were not examined during trial. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock
due to multiple injuries to vital organs, which are sufficient to cause death in
normal course of nature. All injuries were opined to be ante-mortem in nature.
The probable time gap between death and the postmortem examination was
within 36 hours, whereas between injury and death was only of a few hours.
30. PW18 Dr. Mahesh Kumar deposed that injuries are possible in
normal roadside accident while driving a car. PW6 Constable Rajpal, who had
mechanically examined the car and prepared his report Ex.P17, also deposed
that the appearance of the car examined by him was that of a car which had
met with an accident. Thus, in view of circumstances of case when the dead
body of deceased was found in the car, and the deceased was in sitting posture
with head on steering wheel with injuries on his body, the appellant, in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the death was caused in
roadside accident due to accidental injuries. Relying upon the same, learned
trial Court wrongly held that in such a situation, burden lies on the accused to
prove the accident of the car in which Jaimal was lying in dead condition but
the accused failed to prove the said fact. The same is against the settled
position in law that the burden of proof is on prosecution and the weakness of
defence cannot come to the aid of prosecution, which is obliged to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Thus, learned trial Court
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-26-
wrongly placed the reverse burden on the accused/appellant against settled
cannons of law.
31. In Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-
“28. It was argued that the accused were absconding and, therefore,
adverse inference needs to be drawn against them. It is well settled that
absconding by itself does not prove the guilt of a person. A person may
run away due to fear of false implication or arrest. (See Sk. Yusuf v.
State of W.B. [(2011) 11 SCC 754 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 620]). It is also
true that the plea of alibi taken by the accused has failed. The defence
witnesses examined by them have been disbelieved. It was urged that
adverse inference should be drawn from this. We reject this submission.
When the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt it cannot take advantage of the fact that the accused have not
been able to probabilise their defence. It is well settled that the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support
from the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt.”
32. PW17 Jagmohan deposed that he was the owner of car bearing
registration No.HR-51-AH-7099, which was taken on 16.04.2013 on rent by
appellant. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he was not the
owner of the car and further that he did not even take the car on Sapurdari
during trial. Thus, his version that the car was taken by the appellant from him
cannot be believed and the accused/appellant cannot be connected to the car.
No record or register of any kind was produced by PW17 to show that the car
had been taken on rent by the appellant. Even the call details of PW17 or
appellant have not been proved on record to show that the witness PW17
called the appellant to know about the car. Further, his version that while
taking the car, the appellant had left his motorcycle with PW17 is also not
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-27-
proved on record. No such motorcycle has been recovered from PW17, nor any
evidence has been led that the same was taken back by the appellant from
PW17. In fact, PW17, when cross-examined, stated that he did not know the
name of the father of appellant (Parveen). Thus, there is no evidence as to how
and on what basis the car came to possession of Parveen and how PW17 had
the authority to give the same on rent to Parveen. Admittedly, no application
for Sapurdari was made by him as he was not the registered owner of the car.
The recovery memo of car, Ex.P4, from the spot of occurrence cannot be
connected to the appellant as prior to the registration of FIR and the arrest of
appellant, the car along with dead body stood recovered by the investigating
agency. In view of crime scene report (Ex.P30), it is evident that Dr. Ravinder
Pal made observations that the body of deceased was found deliberately fixed
on the steering wheel of the car in a way that it gave a look that someone was
driving the car and Dr. Ravinder Pal (PW12) observed that deep rooted
conspiracy behind the motive could not be ruled out. It is apparent from
Ex.P30 that it was not a case of roadside accident. However, prosecution has
not been able to prove that it is the appellant who is responsible for the death
of deceased Jaimal. Equally important is that the case was based on
circumstantial evidence and from the testimony of the witnesses, documentary
evidence on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that
the prosecution has not been able to establish the chain of circumstances
whereupon the only conclusion that can be drawn by this Court is that of guilt
of accused and no other conclusion is possible. As discussed aforesaid, this
Court finds it difficult to say with absolute certainty that it is the accused who
committed the crime, rather from the circumstances of the case, it appears to
be a case of blind murder which was made to look like an accident and was
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-28-
first discovered by DW1 who then informed the police and investigation was
set into motion. The version of prosecution that the deceased was tied to tree
and then hit with the car and later left on the road sitting in the car is difficult
to believe as the probable time between injury and death is stated to be of a
few hours as per postmortem report (Ex.P33). It is difficult to conceive a
situation that the dead body was lying in that position on main road i.e. Dinod-
Kusumbhi road for hours before being noticed. Injuries may well have been
caused at some other place, and then the occurrence staged as accident.
However, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the appellant had
any role in the same as he has not been connected to the crime.
33. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-
“152 . Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we
would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential
proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial
evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court
is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71: AIR 1952
SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091: 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case has been
uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later
decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v.
State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55] and
Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625 : AIR 1972 SC
656]. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in
Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71: AIR 1952 SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091:
1953 Cri LJ 129]:
“It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be
fully established, and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-29-
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis
but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be
a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that
within all human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.”
153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances
concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is
not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be
proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the
observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not
merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental
distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(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 probability
the act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.”
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-30-
34. Further, in Ex.P30, it was mentioned that, “ It was stated by the
IO/DSP Virender that Jaimal aged about 20 years, son of Rajpal resident of
Devsar was found dead in a car under mysterious circumstances on the
intervening night of 16-17.04.2013 on Dinod-Kusumbhi Link Road. The
incident came in the notice only in the morning. It was reported that some
unidentified culprits brutally murdered and fled away. The father of the
deceased alleged that his son has been killed due to the old grudge. ” It is
apparent that at the time of Ex.P30, the version given in complaint was not
disclosed at that time and the names of Parveen and co-accused ‘K’ were not
mentioned. It was also mentioned in the report, “ presence of paint on the bark
reflects that a white colour vehicle might be barged at the portion of the tree in
question. Signature of dim tyres impression on the ground going towards the
tree further corroborate the findings. ” Thus, the version regarding vehicle
hitting the tree was mentioned in the Ex.P30 itself. Therefore, as aforesaid,
pointing memo Ex.P10 becomes meaningless. It was advised in Ex.P30 that
the investigating agency at the spot may collect inter alia chipped off paint
scrapping from the vehicle as well as from the tree bark for comparison
purpose using clear blade/knife. In fact, admissibility of Ex.P10 was raised
during trial and was objected to as being not admissible in the deposition of
PW1 ASI Hari Ballabh. Further, PW1 Hari Ballabh admitted in cross-
examination that they were going in government vehicle of DSP, but he could
not tell the registration number thereof. He also admitted that the place which
was pointed out by the accused was already in the knowledge of the Police. No
public witness was joined at that time. Also, many persons were admittedly
working in the adjoining field at the time of recovery/demarcation memo. No
public person was called to join the investigation.
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-31-
35. The relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pertaining
to kidnapping or abduction are reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ 364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.—
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may
be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being
murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
Illustrations
(a) A kidnaps Z from India, intending or knowing it to be likely that Z
may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence defined in
this section.
(b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B

may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this section.”
362. Abduction.—
Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any
person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.”
A bare perusal of aforesaid provisions reveals that there is no
evidence whatsoever to prove that Jaimal was compelled or induced by force
or by deceitful means as the case may be by the appellant or was abducted by
the appellant. The allegation of complainant Rajpal (PW4) that he was
informed by someone that appellant Parveen took Jaimal in a vehicle is merely
heresay evidence. No person, who passed such information to complainant
Rajpal PW4, was examined as witness. PW4 Rajpal himself did not see the
appellant taking away Jaimal in the vehicle. Rather, in his deposition before
the Court, complainant Rajpal (PW4) improved upon his earlier version given
in the complaint and stated that the information had been passed to him by his
son Sombir and PW4 was then confronted by the defence, with his previous
complaint, on this aspect, wherein it was not so mentioned. Be that as it may,
RAJAN
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRA-D-910-DB-2014(O&M)
-32-
Sombir has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the allegation of
complainant regarding abduction by appellant in car is merely hearsay
evidence and is liable to be discarded.
36. Coming to the offence under SC & ST Act, the relevant Section is
reproduced hereunder:-
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—
xxx
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,—
xxx
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or
more against a person or property knowing that such person is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such
property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life and with fine;xxx”
Since the prosecution has failed to prove the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 364 IPC, the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v)
of the SC & ST Act is also not made out.
37. Accordingly, the judgement passed by learned trial Court is set
aside and accused/appellant Parveen is acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds, if
any, stand released.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( PUJA CHOPRA ) ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
JUDGE JUDGE
November 5, 2026
Rajan
Whether speaking / reasoned: YES/NO
RAJAN Whether Reportable: YES/NO
2026.11.10 13:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document