The division bench of Justice B.R Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha of the apex court in the case of Ram Niwas V. State of Haryana held that an accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that Dalip Singh, Bhim Singh, and Deep Chand are brothers. Sunita was married to the son of Bhim Singh but after the death of his son, Sunita along with her minor son went to her parental home. All the three brothers went to the house of Sunita’s father and wanted Sunita to marry Dalip Singh’s son. After that, the accused and Dalip Singh started taking liquor together and at the time of the proposal of marriage, a small altercation between them occurred. Deep Chand and Bhim Singh intervened in between and pacified the accused. In the morning, the next day when Deep Chand and Bhim Singh went to the accused to ask about the whereabouts of Dalip Singh he said that he went for answering the call of nature. When they waited for 30 minutes and Dalip Singh didn’t come back they again asked the accused regarding the Dalip Singh but he didn’t give any satisfactory reply. After that when Bhim Singh and Deep Singh went to the courtyard, they felt the smell of the burnt human body. Then, they both again went to the accused and asked about Dalip Singh, the accused out of nervousness replied that Dalip Singh asked for the proposal of marriage to his son then, he pressed his throat and strangulated him to death in order to destroy the evidence the dead body of the deceased was burnt but the same could not be burnt completely. The FIR was lodged by the complainant- Deep Chand.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused contended that it is not clear that the dead body on which the post-mortem was conducted was of the deceased Dalip Singh. It was further contended that even the doctor admitted that the face of the dead body was not recognizable and the shreds of evidence on which the trial court and the high court relied are totally unreliable. The counsel also contended that their actions in not going to the Police Station right away and alerting them of the occurrence, cast considerable doubt on the prosecution's case.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state of Haryana contended that both the courts have rightly convicted the accused. He contended that even the accused has made an extra-judicial confession before the complainant and the confession was corroborated by the recovery of ash which was concealed in the plastic cover on the memorandum of accused under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The court considered the Judgement titled, ‘S. Arul Raja vs. State of Tamil Nadu’ and stated that it will not be safe to base conviction solely on the basis of alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant.
The court considered the other evidence on which they relied upon i.e the seizure of ash kept in the plastic bag, it is clearly admitted that the disclosure statement made by the accused was made in lockup. Though at that time, independent witnesses were available, he had not called any Panch of the said memorandum.
The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and the top court stated the five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. These five golden principles are
- The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
- 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.
- The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
- They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
- 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.
The court held the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events that can be said to exclusively lead to the one and only conclusion i.e, the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the judgment and the order passed by the learned session judge and the High court is not sustainable.
CASE NAME- Ram Niwas V. State of Haryana ;
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2012
DATED- 11.08.22
CORUM- Justice B.R Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments