The case of the prosecution is that while the Assistant Sub- Inspector Balbir Singh, later examined as PW-21 was with other police officials on duty at Deyod Kheri Village, Jind-bypass road, 2 Kaithal, on 11.04.2004, the complainant-Sunil Kumar Bhura (later examined as PW-20) met him and got his statement (EX.PY) recorded. The previous day, that is on 10.04.2004, when PW-20 was in the office of the deceased along with one Balwant Singh (PW-18), the deceased received a call on his mobile phone at about 9.15 PM. During the investigation, the police recorded the statement of Rajesh, later examined as PW-11 and Jogi Ram later examined as PW-12. on 12.04.2004 and while he was returning back to Chandigarh on 13.04.2004, he saw a police vehicle standing at the Karnal bypass Chowk with some police officials and the accused.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dividing-violations-curability-of-defects-in-election-petitions/
It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.04.2004, the Appellant (A-1), Sumit Gupta (A-2), Anil & Jaswinder surrendered before the investigating officer through Ex-Sarpanch of village Geong, Balbir Singh (PW-10) to whom the accused made an extra- judicial confession.
The reasoning, which is in two paragraphs is extracted herein below for ready reference: “In the present case, the chain of circumstances is interwoven which has been corroborative through the testimony of PW-11 Rajesh and PW-12 Jogi Ram who have last seen accused Sumit Gupta and accused Pradeep Kumar with Shamsher Singh deceased.
Similarly, on the pant worn by the accused Pardeep Kumar recovered later, blood ‘O’ group has been found on the stains of pant vide recovery memo Ex. The guilt of accused Sumit Gupta and accused Pardeep Kumar is proved to the fact that in all human probability act of murder has been committed by accused Sumit Gupta and Pardeep Kumar. However, without discussing the evidence of PW-10, the High Court observed that the evidence of PW-11 and PW-12 are sufficient to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. When the deceased demanded the money on 10.04.2004, he was apprehensive of being insulted and therefore planned to kill the deceased with the help of other accused. However, the complainant (PW-20) in his statement on 11.04.2004 says “ today we came to know that Malkhan, Prem Singh, Balbir Sarpanch met Shamsher on Dhand Road, Kaithal at about 10 PM.” The said statement is also recorded in the FIR and charge sheet, though he leaves doubt about this version in his deposition.
This statement gets corroborated by the deposition of Rajesh (PW-11), who stated that; “Thereafter I read news in newspaper regarding murder on 12.04.2004. On 12.04.2004 I read in the newspaper regarding murder at Kaithal in the surrounding area in which I was changing the stepney.
Police recorded my statement on the spot.”
If the statement of PW-11 is to be accepted, which the prosecution wants us to believe, then the arrest had already taken place by 13.04.2004 and therefore the accused were seen in the presence of the police on that day.
In fact, he chances the episode twice over, first on 10.04.2004 at about 10.30 PM when he was going from Chandigarh to Hisar. It is rather surprising that this witness while engrossed in changing the wheel of his car at 10.30 PM manages to note the blood stains on the pant and also recorded the registration number of the motorcycle. As per the statement of PW-12, he went on an evening walk between 9.45 to 10 PM, two Kilometres away from his house, particularly in an area which does not have streetlights. Strangely, instead of reporting the incident to the police chowki which is next to his residence, he goes all the way to Sadar Police Station, Kaithal. He is a witness who was on his way to Haridwar along with his Fufa (father’s sister’s husband).
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/release-of-petitioner-based-on-juvenility-plea/
This witness describes the incidence of meeting the deceased and A-2 at a place where even PW-12 is supposed to have seen the deceased. However, the deceased has suffered an incise wound which according to the doctor, PW-14 who conducted the post-mortem, is caused by a sharp-edged weapon. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727, one of us (Justice Gavai) has taken note of the 17 judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion 18 consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. While the principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies. 43 of 2004 dated 31.08.2007 convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Case Title: PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA (2024 INSC 21)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001338-001338 / 2010
