Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 21st December 2019
VIRENDER VS STATE OF HARYANA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1339 OF 2010
Facts of the case:
- On the intervening night between 6/7.11.1999, the first informant, Suresh Kumar, and his brother Krishan Kumar (the deceased), had gone to their field, which they had taken on Batai, for irrigation purposes; at about 1:30/2:00 AM on 07.11.1999,
- The informant sent Krishan Kumar to verify the water flow in the channel which passed through the ‘Dol’ of the field of Accused No.3- Hawa Singh; when Krishan Kumar was near his tube well (situated near the middle of Hawa Singh’s field), the first informant heard noises of abuses, and on reaching the said place he saw Hawa Singh armed with a axe, Accused No.1 Satpal armed with a sickle, and Accused No.2 Virender, the appellant herein, armed with a lathi; and Hawa Singh raised a cry exhorting that the deceased should be taught a lesson.
- Thereafter, Hawa Singh gave an axe blow to the deceased on the right shoulder, Satpal aimed two sickle blows on the head of the deceased which, however, fell on his left arm, and the appellant gave a lathi blow on the left knee of the deceased, who fell to the ground.
- At that point of time, Hawa Singh gave the deceased an axe blow on his chest, and Satpal gave him a sickle blow on the left knee. When the first informant raised a hue and cry, the uncle of the first informant, Jugal Kishore, came to the spot, and also witnessed the incident. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene.
- The first information report was lodged on the morning of 07.11.1999 and the accused were brought before the sessions court, Narnaul. wherein the sessions court has passed a judgment convicting the appellant/accused along with two other accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “IPC”).
- Later an appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and the court confirming the judgment of the Sessions Court, Narnaul.
- The appellants aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has appealed in the supreme court stating that the courts conviction was merely on assumption and conjectures and not on reliable evidence, in spite of the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue:
- Whether the courts have power to convict merely on assumption and conjectures and not on reliable evidence, in spite of the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable
Held:
- The court held that the prosecution has failed to prove any common intention on the appellant’s part, inasmuch as there is no hint of any motive or reason for him to have either participated in pre-planning the murder of the deceased, or to develop the common intention to do so while present at the spot of the offence.
- It stated that both the Session Court as well as the High Court of Punjab and Haryana have concluded against the appellant merely on assumptions and conjectures and not on reliable evidence, in spite of the prosecution having failed to discharge its burden to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
- It also noticed that the appellant has already suffered more than five years of imprisonment. Be that as it may, since we find that the evidence against the appellant is shaky and insufficient to bring home guilt against him, we are of the opinion that the benefit of doubt must endure to him.
- Hence, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court as against the appellant stands set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since he is already on bail, he need not be arrested in connection with the crime in question. The bail bonds, if any, executed by him stand discharged. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Leave a Reply