2018 INSC 0558
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
C RIMINAL  A PPEAL  N O  ( S ). 1445­1446  OF  2012   
Suresh and Anr.           …Appellant (s)
Versus
State of Haryana        …Respondent (s)
With
C RIMINAL  A PPEAL  N O . 1458  OF  2012   
Sobhat Singh          …Appellant (s)
Versus
Dharampal and Ors.       …Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
N. V. R AMANA , J.   
1. These   appeals   by   special   leave   petitions,   are   preferred   by   two
accused  persons,  namely  Sobhat   Singh  and   Suresh,   against   the
conviction   imposed   by   the   High   Court   and   the   consequential
acquittal of other  persons, namely  Dharampal and Umed Singh,
sons   of   Beg   Raj   and   Dharambir,   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Punjab and Haryana in Crl. Appeal No. 157­DB of 2002, 273­DB
of 2002, 920­SB of 2002, 751­DBA of 2002 and Crl. Revision No.
907 of 2004. Facts being connected and issues being similar, we
would like to deal with these appeals by a common judgment.
1 REPORTABLE

2. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of these cases are
that a panchayat election was held on 15.12.1994, in the village
Sundawas,   where   there   were   two   major   contestants   namely
Maha   Singh   and   Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj.   Deceased   Chander
Bhan was an election agent for the losing candidate Maha Singh.
It   is   necessary   to   note   that   there   was   a   quarrel   including   gun
shots   being   fired   at   around   11   A.M,   on   the   day   of   election
between   both   factions,   as   a   result   of   which   supporters   of
Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj   (winning   candidate)   sustained
injuries.   In   this   context,   a   FIR   No.   733   of   1994   was   registered
against   Maha   Singh   (losing   candidate)   and   one   Darya   under
Sections   307   read   with   34   of   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860
[ hereinafter  referred   as   ‘ IPC ’   for  brevity ]  and  Sections   25  and  27
of the Arms Act, 1959. 
3. Later,   during   the   intervening   night   of   15 th
  and   16 th  
December   of
1994,   Dharampal   alias   Dharam   son   of   Nanak   Ram   [accused   A­
1 ],   Sobhat   Singh   [accused   A­2 ],   both   being   supporters   of   losing
candidate  Maha  Singh, came to the house of Chander  Bhan, on
2

the pretext that since Maha Singh had lost the election and was
involved   in   a   criminal   case,   they   should   falsely   implicate
Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj   also,   by   registering   a   counter   case
against him. On this pretext, they accompanied Chander Bhan to
Hisar.   On   their   way,   one   Suresh   [accused   A­3 ]   is   supposed   to
have joined them.
4. One   Umed   Singh   son   of   Mahi   Ram   [ PW­14 ],   while   waiting   near
Borstal   Jail,   Hisar   for   a   conveyance   at   4:00   A.M   on   16.12.1994
(morning) had seen A­1, A­2, Chander Bhan and A­3 going in an
auto   rickshaw.   It   is   the   prosecution’s   version   that   all   of   them
went to an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar at Hisar, wherein
Chander Bhan (deceased) was shot by the aforesaid accused.
5. Thereafter,   A­1   and   A­2   took   injured   Chander   Bhan   to   the   City
Civil   Hospital,   Hisar   for   treatment.   It   is   alleged   that   in   the
meanwhile   A­3   tried   to   hide   the   gun.   It   is   born   from   the   record
that   Chander   Bhan   succumbed   to   his   injuries   20   minutes   after
he was admitted to the aforesaid Hospital on 16.12.1994.
3

6. Thereafter,  accused A­2  went  to  the Police  Station, Sadar  Hisar,
for   registration   of   a   complaint   against   Umed   Singh   son   of   Beg
Raj,   Dharam   Pal   son   of   Beg   Raj   [Sarpanch]   and   Dharambir   for
the death of Chander Bhan. Accordingly, FIR was filed before the
police being FIR No. 736/ 1994, dated 16.12.1994, based on the
accused A­2.
7. As   per   the   narration   of   accused   A­2,   on   16.12.1994,   at   about
4:30 A.M, the Chander Bhan (deceased), A­2 and A­1 were going
to Chandigarh on foot. On reaching a few kilometers ahead of the
village Sundawas, they spotted a jeep coming towards them. One
of the occupants Umed Singh son of Beg Raj, raised   lalkara   that
enemies   were   going   and   they   should   be   taught   a   lesson   for
helping   Maha   Singh   in   the   elections.   Dharampal   and   Umed
Singh sons of Beg Raj and Dharambir alighted from the jeep and
Dharam   Pal   son   of   Beg   Raj,   who   was   armed   with   a   pistol,   shot
Chander Bhan in his stomach and ran away. It is alleged that A­
1 and A­2, who escaped the firing, rushed Chander Bhan to the
City Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he succumbed to his injuries.
4

8. The   case   was   investigated   by   I.O.   Bhim   Singh   [ PW­15 ],   who
reached the spot of the alleged occurrence as per the narration of
accused   A­2.   However,   he   could   not   trace   any   incriminating
material as alleged. Being suspicious of the version of accused A­
2,   the   investigating   police,   started   to   investigate   from   different
angles.
9. On   25.12.1994,   all   the   accused­appellants   contacted   one   Zile
Singh   [ PW­16 ]   and   confessed   their   guilt   before   him.   To   put   the
gist   of   their   extra­judicial   confessions,   it   may   be   noted   that   the
accused   stated   to   Zile   Singh   ( PW­16 )   that   having   the   motive   to
file   a   counter   case   against   Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj,   the
Sarpanch,   the   accused­appellants   along   with   Chander   Bhan
reached an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar, Hisar and Suresh
[ A­3 ] fired a shot at Chander Bhan in the house at Adarsh Nagar.
Thereupon   accused   A­3   fled   away   with   the   gun.   Later,   accused
A­1 and A­2 took Chander Bhan to the hospital and registered a
false   complaint   against   Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj,   Dharambir
and Umed Singh son of Beg Raj under Section 302, IPC. 
5

10.      It may  be noted that Zile Singh produced all  the  accused before
the   Police   and   thereafter   the   accused   identified   the   place   of
occurrence. By virtue of such disclosure statements made by the
individual   accused   persons,   the   police   are   alleged   to   have
recovered   a   licensed   gun,   cartridges,   pellets,   some   concrete
material   from   the   khurli   found   in   the   house   at   Adarsh   Nagar,
Hisar. Based on the  aforesaid complaint, Bhim  Singh, S.I  to the
P.S Sadar, Hisar, registered a case under Sections 25, 30, 54 and
59 of Arms Act, being  FIR No. 743 [Ex. PZ/1], against Lachman
Singh [A­4] and A­3.
11.       After   the   completion   of   the   investigation,   charge­sheets   came   to
be   filed   in   the   Court   against   the   accused   A­1,   A­2   and   A­3   for
offences   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   of   IPC   and
accordingly,   were   summoned   by   the   Addl.   Sessions   Judge   on
10.10.1995   [ in   Criminal   Case   No.   76­1­0802   of   1995   (Sessions
Case   No.   60   of   1995   in   Sessions   Trial   No.   22   of   1995) ].   In   a
connected case of FIR No. 743, the accused A­3 and Lachman (A­
4) were being tried for usage of fire arms, which was consolidated
6

with   the   main   case,   by   order   dated   19.09.1999   and   both   the
cases   were   tried   together.   During   the   trial,   the   Prosecution
examined 17 witnesses and the Defense examined 4 witnesses in
the Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995 .   It may be noted here that the
accused   examined   themselves   as   defense   witnesses   under
Section   315   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   [ herein   after
referred as  ‘ CrPC ’  for brevity ]. 
12.    The Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995 in Sessions Trial
No.   22   of   1995,   by   order   dated   12.02.2002,   found   the   accused
guilty   of   committing   the   crime   and   convicted   them   for   the
offences punishable as under­
A CCUSED C HARGES C ONVICTION
Sobhat
Singh [A­
2] S. 302/34
IPC RI   for   Life   and   fine   of   Rs
5,000.   In   default,   to   suffer
RI for 6 months 
Suresh
[A­3] [1] S.
302/34 IPC
[2] S. 25
Arms Act [1] RI for Life and fine of Rs
5,000.   In   default,   to   suffer
RI for 6 months. 
[2]   RI   for   1   year   and   fine   of
Rs   500,   In   default,   to
undergo RI for 15 days.
Sentence   to   run
concurrently.
Lachman
[A­4] S. 30, Arms
Act Fine of Rs 1,000. In default,
to suffer RI for 15 days.
7

It may be noted, that during the trial, accused A­1 died and the
trial   against   him   got   abated.   The   Trial   Court,   held   the   accused
guilty, and reasoned as under­
a) The motive is proved, wherein the crime was staged so as
to   falsely   implicate   Sarpanch   Dharampal   belonging   to
opposite political faction.
b) That   the   accused   portrayed   a   fake   story   and   filed   a   FIR
against   Dharampal,   Umed   Singh   sons   of   Beg   Raj   and
Dharambir   alleging   that   they   have   murdered   Chander
Bhan.   However,   no   evidence   was   found   against
Dharampal,   Umed   and   Dharambir   at   the   place   of
occurrence as described by accused A­2.
c) There   was   no   motive   for   Dharampal,   Umed   Singh   and
Dharambir   to   murder   Chander   Bhan.   Rather,   a   motive
exists   on   the   part   of   the   accused,   since   their   candidate
had lost the election. 
d) Inference   was   drawn   that   the   probability   of   causing
injuries   to   Chander   Bhan   by   A­1   and   A­2   was   relatively
higher.
e) That PW­14, Umed Singh son of Mahi Ram, had seen the
accused   with   the   deceased   early   in   the   morning   when
they had a small conversation and that the Umed Singh
(PW­14)   had   noticed   that   Suresh   was   holding   a   single
barrel gun. 
f) That   the   version   of   accused   A­2   was   not   tenable   due   to
many contradicting circumstances.
g) That   the   accused   had   confessed   their   crime   before   Zile
Singh   ( PW­16 ),   who   later   produced   the   accused   before
the Police on 25.12.1994.
h) That   the   disclosure   statements   made   by   the   accused
appellants herein, before the police, led to the recovery of
the licensed gun and pellets.
8

i) The   FSL   Report   concludes   that   the   pellets   which   were
recovered   from   the   Khurli   as   per   such   disclosure   were
similar to those found in the dead body. 
j) The Post­mortem report confirms the death to have been
caused   due   to   hemorrhage   and   shock   due   to   gunshot
injuries. 
13.     Aggrieved by the fact that the complainant was himself shown as
an   accused   by   the   investigating   authority,   A­2   filed   a   complaint
before the Magistrate against the Dharambir, Umed Singh son of
Beg Raj and Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, on the facts as revealed
by accused A­2 in FIR No. 736 dated 16.12.1994.
14.     Accordingly,   the   Magistrate   separately   took   cognizance   and
committed   the   case   to   the   Sessions   Court   against   Dharambir,
Umed Singh  son  of  Beg  Raj and Dharam  Pal  son  of Beg   Raj, on
25.01.1997   [ in   Complaint   Case   No.   95­1   of   1995   (Sessions   case
No. 62 of 1997 ] under Sections 302 read with 34 of IPC. Further
by order dated 05.03.1997, the Sessions Judge ordered the trial
of   all   the   cases   to   take   place   simultaneously.   All   the   accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 
9

15.       In   Sessions   case   No.   62   of   1997,   the   Sessions   Court   by   order,
dated   12.02.2002,   acquitted   Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj,   Umed
Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharambir on the following reasons­
a) That   prosecution   failed   to   establish   motive   on   the   part   of
accused­Dharampal son of Beg Raj, as he has already won
the election.
b) That   accused   persons   came   at   midnight   ­   15.12.1994
­16.12.1994,   called   the   deceased   and   told   him   that   they
had  to  shoot  somebody  so  as to  falsely   implicate Sarpanch
Dharampal son of Beg Raj in a case as corroborated by the
evidence of DW­1 (Kamla).
c) That   the   story   of   the   prosecution   that   the   deceased   was
shot on the road at a distance of 1­1/2 K.M. from village by
the accused Dharampal son of Beg Raj is uncorroborated in
the absence of any incriminating evidence in the said crime
scene, as supported by the evidence of DW­5 Bhim Singh.
d) That DW­2 Umed Singh corroborated that on 16.12.1994 at
about   4:30   A.M.   while   waiting   for   conveyance   to   go   to   his
village he had seen Sobhat Singh, Dharampal son of Nanak
Ram   and   the   Suresh  who   was  carrying   a   single   barrel  gun
along with the deceased in an auto­rickshaw. 
e) The   complainant   had   taken   deceased   to   the   Hospital   at   6:
30 AM. In cross­examination Sobhat Singh ( PW­4/A­2 ) and
Dharampal   ( PW­5/A­1 )   could   not   explain   when   the
deceased   received   injuries   or   why   did   they   not   take   the
deceased to the nearby hospital. 
f) That   complainants   further   failed   to   explain   in   their   cross­
examination how the three­wheeler appeared merely within
five­minutes to take them to the Hospital at Hisar.
g) The   evidence   of   PW5­Dharampal   son   of   Nanak   Ram,   is
contradictory   to   PW­4   (Shobat   Singh   [ A­2 ])   as   to   how   they
took the deceased to the hospital.
10

h) That the complainants failed to state the number of vehicle,
driver   of   the   vehicle   in   their   cross­examination.   They   have
also   failed   to   explain   why   they   did   not   immediately   report
the   matter   in   the   village   and   to   the   family   members   of   the
deceased   when   they   were   just   at   a   distance   of   1­1/2   km
from the village. 
i) That   extra­judicial   confession   was   made   before   DW­3   (Zile
Singh).
j) That   the   gun   recovered   in   the   instant   case   was   the   gun
belonging   to   complainant   Suresh   [ A­3 ]   and   FSL   report
available on record proves that the pellets found in the body
of the deceased were similar to those fired from that gun.
k) Therefore,   the   prosecution   failed   to   prove   a   case   beyond
reasonable   doubt   against   the   accused.   So,   all   the   accused
were acquitted of the charge against them.
16.       Aggrieved   by   the   judgments   of   the   Trial   Court,   in   Session   Case
No. 60, accused A­2, A­3 and A­4 filed Criminal Appeal No. 273­
DB, 157­DB, 920­SB  respectively   before the  High Court. On  the
other hand, accused A­2 filed a Criminal Appeal No. 751­DBA of
2002, against the acquittal, of Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed
Singh   son   of   Beg   Raj   and   Dharambir,   passed   by   the   Sessions
Court in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997. It may be noted that the
High Court clubbed all the appeals and dismissed them through
a   common   impugned   judgment   dated   03.01.2012.   The   High
Court had further directed accused A­2 and A­3 to pay a sum of
11

Rs.   One   Lac   as   damages   to   Smt.   Kamla   and   her   two   children.
17.     The   High   Court   while   upholding   the   conviction   emphasized
following grounds­
a) That   it   was   admitted   by   accused   A­2   and   A­1   that   they   had
called for Chander Bhan at his house, in the presence of his
wife, on 16.12.1994.
b) That   the   evidence   produced   by   the   I.O   indicates   that   the
accused   took   Chander   Bhan   to   a   room   in   Adarsh   Nagar,
Hisar,   where   he   was   shot   by   accused   A­3   using   his   single
barrel gun.
c) The   accused­appellants   had   confessed   to   their   crime,   which
led to the recovery of certain incriminating articles.
d) Sufficient   evidence   is   on   record   like   recovery   of   pellets,   gun
and some concrete material etc. to prove that Chander Bhan
was shot inside that Kotha (Room) by the accused and not by
the other gang, as alleged.
e) There was a crystal­clear motive on the part of the accused A­
2 to commit such crime so as to implicate Dharampal son of
Beg Raj (Sarpanch) in a false case.
f) Apart   from   the   testimony   of   wife­Kamla   and   the   recovery   of
the   incriminating   materials,   the   evidence   of   PW   14   (Umed
Singh), who deposed that he had seen the accused along with
Chander   Bhan   (deceased)   earlier   that   morning   with   Suresh
was also a major circumstance going against the accused.
g) Lastly,   the   extra   judicial   confession   made   before   Zile   Singh
(PW­16),   is   found   to   be   true   and   voluntary   and   since   PW­16
is an independent witness, his evidence cannot be doubted.
h) The   chain   of   circumstances   are   complete   so   as   to   bring
home the guilt of the accused.
i) Further,   the   gun   used   was   a   licensed   gun   which
belonged to Lachman, father of A­3, who had allowed the
gun   to   be   taken   from   his   custody   and   misused   by   his
son.   Hence,   the   conviction   under   Arms   Act   was   also
justified.
12

18.      Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
High Court, accused A­2 and A­3 have preferred Criminal Appeal
No (s). 1445­1446 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 2868­
2869 of 2012) in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995 in Sessions Trial
No. 22 of 1995. Further accused A­2 preferred a Criminal Appeal,
being   Criminal  Appeal  No.  1458 of   2012  (arising  from  SLP  (Crl.)
No. 2926 of 2012), against the acquittal of Dharampal son of Beg
Raj, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharambir in Sessions Case
No. 62 of 1997 in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1997.
19.    Learned senior counsel, Ms. Anjana Prakash, appearing on behalf
of the appellant accused has mainly contended as under­
a) That   the   case   involves   no   direct   evidence   and   the   chain   of
circumstantial   evidence   is   not   complete;   therefore,   the
conviction   of   the   appellants   on   the   basis   of   unfounded
evidence should not be sustained. 
b) That PW­13 (wife of the deceased), when materially confronted,
denied   the   statement   that   she   had   stated   to   the   police   that
accused A­1 and appellant accused A­2 had told the deceased
that they had to fire a shot at somebody to implicate Sarpanch
Dharampal son of Beg Raj.
c) That   PW­14   presence   at   spot   is   doubtful.     He   made   out   an
illogical   story   that   while   waiting   for   conveyance   to   go   to   his
village at 4:00 AM, he had seen the appellant and Dharampal
with the deceased. But in Cross examination he was not able
to   explain   why   he   was   waiting   for   the   conveyance   3½	  hours
13

early,   especially   when   the   first   bus   for   his   village   leaves   at
7:30 AM. 
d) That PW­14 has also admitted that he did not tell PW­13 that
he   had   seen   accused   persons   carrying   gun   along   with   the
deceased in the said auto­ rickshaw. PW­14  inter alia  has also
admitted   that   he   and   PW­16   had   injured   the   deceased   at   an
earlier point of time and denied the fact that brother of PW16
had fired upon the deceased. 
e) That alleged extra­judicial confession made on 25.12.94 before
PW­16 is not admissible on the ground that it was made under
suspicious circumstances. PW­16  inter­alia , also admitted that
Maha   Singh   had   defeated   him   previously   in   the   Sarpanch
election;   therefore,   election   rivalry   is   evident   against   accused
persons. 
f) That   if   the   accused   persons   were   arrested   on   18.12.94,   then
the   question   of   alleged   extrajudicial   confession   made   on
25.12.94 before PW16 casts doubt in the prosecution story. 
g)   That   the   FIR   was   lodged   by   the   appellants   and   it   is   also   an
admitted   fact   that   it   was   the   appellant­accused   who   had
brought the injured at the hospital for treatment. 
h) That the gun recovered in the instant case is the licensed gun
of   the   father   of   the   accused   Suresh   and   there   is   no   forensic
evidence available on record to prove that pellets found in the
body of the deceased was fired from that gun.
i) That   the   motive   plays   an   important   role   in   a   case   of
circumstantial evidence. In the present case there is no strong
motive  that   can  be inferred  on  the  part  of  accused  person  on
the ground of election rivalry.
j) That the role of investigating officer is doubtful in this case as
there are contradictions in respect of the date of arrest of the
accused persons. As the IO stated that he had found evidence
against   appellants   within   two   days   of   occurrence   but   denied
arresting them then. However, from the materials on record it
is   evident   that   date   of   arrest   of   accused   persons   is   on
14

18.12.1994.   That   it   can   be   said   that   IO   is   exonerating   the
actual accused and falsely implicating the appellants. 
20.     On   the   Other   hand,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
State, Dr. Monika Gusain, while supporting the judgment of the
lower   courts,   has   drawn   our   attention   to   the   fact   that   the
accused,  were   hard  core  criminals,   who   would   not   stop   short   of
killing their own for political rivalry. She has also contended that
the recovery at the place in Adarsh Nagar bolsters the case of the
prosecution.   She   argues   that   if   for   a   moment,   the   version   of
accused   A­1   is   taken   into   consideration,   then   there   was   no
question   of   taking   the   deceased   to   a   Hospital   24   KM   away   in
Hisar, while there was a Hospital near the vicinity of the alleged
crime scene. 
21. Having   heard   the   Learned   counsel   for   either   side   and   given
our  anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the
case   on   hand,   at   the   outset,   it   would   be   apt   to   observe   certain
statements   of   prosecution   witnesses,   on   whose   evidence   the
courts   below   have   excessively   placed   reliance.   For   this   purpose,
it   would   be   necessary   for   us   to   deal   with   the   two   cases
separately.   First,   we   would   like   to   take   up   the   Criminal   Appeal
15

N O .  1445­1446 OF 2012 and thereafter consider Criminal Appeal
No. 1458 of 2012.
22.      PW­1(Dr. Bishnoi), SMO General Hospital, Tohana, deposed that
he   was   the   person,   who   conducted   the   post­mortem   of   the
deceased. Regarding the nature of the injury, he states that­
Multiple   rounded   and   oval   shaped   wounds   of   the
size of 1/3 cm into 1/3 cm present on the front of
trunk and pelvic area along with upper part of the
front of both thighs numbering about (50). Majority
of   these   wounds   were   present   on   the   left   side   of
front   part   of   the   body.   These   were   covered   with
clotted   blood   with   inverted   margins   with
lacerations.   No   blackening   or   tattooing   were
present.   …   All   structures   in   the   pelvic   and   in   the
lower  abdomen including  small and large intestine
and vessels were injured. Abdominal cavity was full
of red colored blood.
Further   he   has   deposed   that   the   death   of   Chander   Bhan
(deceased)   resulted   because   of   hemorrhage,   and   shock   due   to
gun­shot   injuries.   All   injuries   were   opined   to   have   been   ante­
mortem   in   nature   and   sufficient   in   the   usual   course   to   cause
death.
23.     PW­2   (Dr.   Surinder   Singh),   Medical   Officer,   who   treated   the
Chander Bhan (deceased) at the Hospital. He avers that from the
perusal of the bed­head ticket, the Chander Bhan (deceased) was
16

brought   to   the   Hospital   at   Hisar,   by   accused   A­1   and   A­2.   It   is
important   to   note   that   the   deceased   was   brought   in   a   semi­
conscious state to the Hospital.
24.     PW­   13   ­   Smt.   Kamla,   widow   of   deceased   Chander   Bhan   states
that   on   15.12.1994,   an   election   was   held   in   the   village   of
Sundawas, wherein the deceased Chander Bhan, was an election
agent   for   Maha   Singh.   She   deposed   that   persons   in   support   of
Maha   Singh,   supposedly   fired   gun   shots   and   the   supporters   of
Dharampal son of Beg Raj, allegedly had received injuries in the
aforesaid firing. In the intervening night of 15­16 th
, A­1 and A­2,
came   to   meet   the   deceased   Chander   Bhan.   She   states   that   her
husband   had   enquired   with   the   aforesaid   accused,   who   had
revealed   to   him   that   they   had   to   go   to   Hisar   and   had   to   shoot
somebody   so   as   to   involve   Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj   in   a   false
case. In that pretext she states that all the three accused (A­1, A­
2 and A­3) and Chander Bhan (deceased) left for Hisar.
25.       It   may   be   of   some   significance   to   note   that,   during   her   cross
examination, she states as under­
I   had   told   in   my   statement   to   the   police   that
accused Dharma and Sobhat has told my husband
17

that   somebody   was   to   be   fired   at.   I   had   told   the
police   in   my   statement   that   accused   Dharma   and
Sobhat   had   told   my   husband   that   they   would   fire
shots   at   their   own   brother   in   order   to   involve
Dharampal Sarpanch. 
Appellant­accused   has   extensively   placed   reliance   on   the
aforesaid   statement,   to   point   that   the   statement   of   PW­13   was
ridden   with   improvements,   which   questions   the   reliability   and
credibility   of   her   statements.   The   consequence   of   the   same,   will
be discussed at a later stage.
26.      PW­14 (Umed Singh son of Mahi Ram), states that he belongs to
the   village   of   Sundawas.   On   15.12.1994,   after   casting   his   vote,
he   returned   to   Hisar   in   the   evening   for   purchase   of   seed   and
fertilizers.   Following   morning,   at   about   4   AM,   while   he   was
standing near the Borstal Jail, Hisar, waiting for a bus to go back
to   his   village   Sundawas.   Around   that   time,   one   auto   rickshaw
came   from   the   side   of   Hisar   City   and   stopped   near   him.   The
occupants of  the  auto­rickshaw  were accused A­1, A­2,  A­3 and
Chander  Bhan. He states that accused A­3 was holding  a single
barrel gun in his hand. When the occupants enquired about him,
he  replied to  them  that  he was  waiting   for   the conveyance  to  go
18

back to his village and the occupants of the auto supposedly told
him that they were going for some urgent work.
27.       PW­15­   Bhim   Singh,   the   Investigating   Officer   has   deposed   that
accused   A­2   had   registered   a   complaint   against   Umed   Singh,
Dharampal sons of Beg Raj and Dharambir on the grounds that
they   have   shot   the   deceased   Chander   Bhan   on   account   of   prior
rivalry. He further deposed that in furtherance of the enquiry, on
reaching the alleged scene of the crime, he did not find any tyre
marks of the jeep or any incriminating marks whatsoever. It may
be   noted   that   his   evidence   is   a   crucial   link   to   portray   that   the
case   of   false   prosecution   against   the   winning   candidate
Dharampal son of Beg Raj was given full effect by misleading the
police   authority   as   to   the   scene   of   the   incident.   He   further
recorded the statement of PW­13­Smt. Kamla and found out that
on 16.12.1994 the accused A­2 and A­1 came to the house of the
deceased   at   around   midnight   and   took   Chander   Bhan   on   the
pretext   that   since   Maha   Singh   had   lost   the   election   and   was
involved   in   a   criminal   case,   hence   they   should   falsely   implicate
19

Sarpanch   Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj,   by   registering   a   counter
case against him.
28.       PW­15   further   deposed   that   PW­14   informed   that   while   Umed
Singh  ( PW­14 )  was   waiting  at   Borstal  Jail,   Hisar  for   conveyance
at  4:00  A.M  on  16.12.1994, he  had  seen  that  accused A­1, A­2,
deceased   Chander   Bhan   and   A­3   were   going   for   some   urgent
work   and   that   he   had   also   noticed   A­3   holding   a   single   barrel
gun. 
29.      Furthermore, PW­15 had also deposed that later, on 25.12.1994,
PW­16,   Zile   Singh   had   produced   the   accused   before   him   where
he recorded the statement of Zile Singh with regard to the extra
judicial   confession   made   to   him   by   the   accused.   It   may   be
relevant   to   note   PW­15   in   the   examination­in­chief   states   that
the Zile Singh (PW­16), left the Police Station and did not wait till
the   completion   of   the   interrogation.   Whereas,   in   the   cross­
examination   he   contradicts   himself   that   Zile   Singh   (PW­16)   was
present during the interrogation of the appellant­accused. PW­15
also deposed that by virtue of the disclosure statements made by
the   individual   accused   persons,   the   recovery   of   the   gun,
20

cartridges, pellets and some concrete material from room and the
khurli of the Adarsh Nagar House were made. 
30.       PW­16   (Zile   Singh),   deposes   that   on   25.12.1994,   when   he   had
come   to   the   village   Sundawas,   accused   A­1,   A­2   and   A­3   had
confessed   before   him   by   detailing   the   modus   operandi   of   the
crime   and   subsequent   cover­up   of   the   incident.   Thereafter,   he
states   that   he   handed   over   the   accused   to   the   police   for
interrogation   and   the   interrogation   was   conducted   in   his
presence. At the appropriate stage, we will examine the relevance
of   the   aforesaid   confession   made   before   Zile   Singh   (PW­16)   and
its impact on the prosecution’s case.
31.      As regards to the evidence of other witnesses who supported the
prosecution   case,   PW­17,   Mewa   Singh,   is   the   panch   witness   for
the   seizures   made   by   the   police   from   crime   scene.   He   deposed
that on 25.12.1994, he went to the police station along with one
Sant   Lal   on   getting   the   information   that   the   real   culprits   in
Chander   Bhan's   murder   case   have   been   arrested.   He   further
deposed   that   I.O.   Bhim   Singh   interrogated   the   accused   in   his
21

presence.   That   during   such   interrogation,   accused   A­1   and   A­3
pointed out that they will be able to show the scene of the crime
as   well   as   the   hidden   gun.   He   had   further   deposed   that   he   and
Sant   Lal   were   witnesses   to   the   subsequent   recoveries   made   by
the investigating officer.
32.    After having appreciated the evidence of certain crucial witnesses,
we   would   like   to   clarify   at   the   outset   that   this   is   a   case   of
circumstantial   evidence.   Jurisprudentially   the   meaning   of
circumstantial evidence has never been settled. Although we may
not   require   a   detailed   analysis   of   the   jurisprudential   dichotomy
which exists as to what amounts to ‘circumstantial evidence’, we
may indicate certain precedents and legal literature have given a
definite   shape   for   the   aforesaid   term.   In   Thomas   Starkie,   A
Practical   treatise   on   the   law   of   evidence,   and   digest   of
proofs,   in   civil   and   criminal   proceedings   (vol.   I,   4 th
  Eds.,
1876) , it is said that­
"In   criminal   cases,   proof   that   the   party   accused
was   influenced   by   a   strong   motive   of   interest   to
commit the offence proved to have been committed,
although   exceedingly   weak   and   inconclusive   in
itself,   and   although   it   be   a   circumstance   which
22

ought   never   to   operate   in   proof   of   the   corpus
delicti,   yet   when   that   has   once   been   established
aliunde,   it   is   a   circumstance   to   be   considered   in
conjunction   with   others   which   plainly   tend   to
implicate the accused".
Sir Fitz James Stephen, while writing his  Introduction to Indian
Evidence Act , 1872, writes as under­
Facts   relevant   to   the   issue   are   facts   from   the
existence of which inferences as to the existence of
the facts in issue may be drawn.
A   fact   is   relevant   to   another   fact   when   the
existence of the one can be shown to be the cause
or   one   of   the   causes,   or   the   effect   or   one   of   the
effects,   of   existence   of   the   other,   or   when   the
existence   of   the   one,   either   alone   or   together   with
other   facts,   renders   the   existence   of   the   other
highly   probable,   or   improbable,   according   to   the
common course of events.
Wharton's Criminal Evidence  (1955)­
"In   prosecutions   for   homicide,   as   in   criminal
prosecutions   generally,   evidence   to   show   motive   is
competent   and   considerable   latitude   is   allowed   in
its introduction. When proof has been made of the
corpus   delicti,   all   facts   and   circumstances   that
tend to show motive on the part of the accused are
relevant".
33.    Peacock v. The King ,  13 CLR 619, expounded the circumstantial
evidence to mean­
Whether   the   fact,   or   that   body   of   facts   which   is
called   the   'case'   is   capable   of   bearing   a   particular
23

inference,   is   for   the   Court,   and   unless   it   is   so
capable, the Court's duty is to withhold it from the
jury,   as   a   single   fact   or   as   a   case.   But   when   the
case   is   undoubtedly   capable   of   the   inference   of
guilt,   albeit   some   other   inference   or   theory   be
possible, it is for the jury, properly directed, and for
them   alone,   to   say  not   merely   whether   it   carries  a
strong   probability   of   guilt,   but   whether   the
inference   exists   actually   and   clearly,   and   so
completely   overcomes   all   other   inferences   or
hypotheses,   as   to   leave   no   reasonable   doubt   of
guilt in their minds.
34.       In   Anant   Chintaman   Lagu   v.   State   of   Bombay ,   AIR   1960   SC
500, this court defined circumstantial evidence­
Circumstantial   evidence   in   this   context   means,   a
combination   of   facts   creating   a   network   through
which  there  is  no  escape  for   the  accused,  because
the   facts   taken   as   a   whole   do   not   admit   of   any
inference but of his guilt.
35.     In line with the aforesaid definition, this Court in catena of cases
has   expounded   the   test   of   ‘complete   chain   link   theory’   for   the
prosecution   to   prove   a   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt   based   on
the circumstantial evidence. In  Hanumant and Others v. State
of   Madhya   Pradesh ,   AIR   1952   SC   343   [ hereinafter   referred   as
‘ Hanumant   Case ’   for   brevity ],   this   Court   explained   one   of   the
24

possible ways to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence,
in the following manner ­
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   tendency   and   they   should   be   such   as   to
exclude   every   hypothesis   but   the   one   proposed   to
be proved.
36.     It   was   for   the   first   time   that   this   Court   formulated   a   test
concerning  circumstantial   evidence.   Subsequently,  the   aforesaid
test   was   applied   on   multiple   occasions   by   this   Court   in
Deonandan   Mishra   v.   State   of   Bihar ,   AIR   1955   SC   801,
Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore , AIR 1960 SC 29.
37.      In   Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , AIR 1967 SC 520,
this   Court   expounded   the   proposition   laid   down   in   Hanumant
Case  (supra), and observed as under­
It   is   well   established   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   the   circumstances   so   established
should   be   consistent   only   with   the   hypothesis   of
25

the   guilt   of   the   accused   person;   that   is,   the
circumstances   should   be   of   such   a   nature   as   to
reasonably   exclude   every   hypothesis   but   the   one
proposed   to   be   proved.   To   put   it   in   other   words,
the   chain   of   evidence   must   be   so   far   complete
as   not   to   leave   any   reasonable   ground   for   a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused person.
We   may   note   that   this   Court   for   the   first   time   explained   the
general test applicable for evaluating circumstantial evidence and
brought in the concept of ‘completion of chain of evidence’. 
38.       In   Sharad   Birdhichand   Sarda   v.   State   of   Maharashtra ,  AIR
1984   SC   1622.   Therein,   while   dealing   with   circumstantial
evidence, it has been held that the onus was on the prosecution
to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity or lacuna in
the   prosecution   cannot   be   cured  by   a  false  defense  or   plea.   The
conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction
could   be   based   on   circumstantial   evidence,   must   be   fully
established. They are ­
  (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 merely ‘may be’ established;
26

  (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.
The   aforesaid   tests   are   aptly   referred   as   ‘ Panchsheel   of   proof   in
Circumstantial Cases’  [ refer  Prakash v. State of Rajasthan ,  AIR
2013   SC   1474].   The   expectation   is   that   the   prosecution’s   case
should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and
inferences   thereof   and   their   compatibility   with   a   singular
hypothesis wherein   all  the  intermediate  facts  and  the  case  itself
are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
39.       Circumstantial   evidence   are   those   facts,   which   the   court   may
infer   further.   There   is   a   stark   contrast   between   direct   evidence
and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence,
27

the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available
evidences,   which   may   lead   to   the   accused’s   guilt.   In   majority   of
cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the
case from  its initiation to the  point  of  commission  wherein  each
factual   link   is   ultimately   based   on   evidence   of   a   fact   or   an
inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts
in   the   first   place   so   as   to   fit   the   case   within   the   parameters   of
‘chain   link   theory’   and   then   see   whether   the   case   is   made   out
beyond   reasonable   doubt.   In   India   we   have   for   a   long   time
followed   the   ‘chain   link   theory’   since   Hanumant   Case   (supra),
which of course needs to be followed herein also.
40.      We need to consider five aspects and their impact on the case at
hand,   before   we   put   forth   our   analysis.   It   is   well   settled   that
motive is an important aspect in circumstantial evidence case. In
Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1973 SC 55
“In  case  the prosecution  is not  able to  discover  an
impelling   motive,   that   could   not   reflect   upon   the
credibility  of  a witness proved  to  be  a reliable  eye­
witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go
a   long   way   in   cases   wholly   dependent   on
circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form
one   of   the   links   in   the   chain   of   circumstantial
evidence in such a case. But that would not be so
28

in   cases   where   there   are   eye­witnesses   of
credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is
properly   proved,   such   proof   would   strengthen   the
prosecution   case   and   fortify   the   court   in   its
ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if
motive   is   not   established,   the   evidence   of   an   eye­
witness is rendered untrustworthy”.
In   this   case   the   motive   has   an   important   role   as   this   case   is
based on circumstantial evidence, motive herein forms one of the
intermediate   fact/circumstances.   In   this   case,   the   motive   of
killing   Chander   Bhan   (deceased)   was   to   foist   a   false   case   on
Dharampal son of Beg Raj. If the motive was to foist a false case,
then   it   is   quite   strange   to   believe   that   the   accused   went   to   the
extent   of   killing   their   own   (supporter   of   Maha   Singh)   to   avenge
the loss in the elections. Even if the motive is taken to be proved,
then   this   too   only   forms   one   of   the   circumstances   for   adducing
the guilt of the accused.
41.     The   credibility   of   the   witnesses,   which   the   prosecution   mainly
relies   on   to   prove   the   case   on   the   basis   of   the   circumstantial
evidence is an important aspect. In this case the evidence of PW­
13   (wife   of   the   deceased)   is   crucial.   Her   statements   should   be
carefully appreciated.  The statements, as indicated above, clearly
29

portray that there were material improvements in the statements,
which   makes   her   statement   unreliable   and   doubtful.   The
vindictive   statements   which   were   made   during   the   cross
examination,   clearly   bars   us   from   taking   her   testimony   into
consideration.   There   is   no   dispute   that   there   was   prior   enmity
between   the   wife   and   the   accused   appellants,   which   makes   her
statements  unreliable .  It is revealed from her evidence that, even
though   she   knew   that   her   husband   was   taken   for   shooting
somebody,   she   kept   quiet   and   did   not   stop   her   husband   from
accompanying   the   accused.   Such   behavior   would   be   suspicious
as it does not fit with the natural human behavior to inspire any
confidence.
42.    Although this Court, on number of occasions, reiterated that mere
relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a
witness,   in   the   present   circumstances,   it   is   apparent   that   the
wife was an interested witness due to earlier enmity between the
accused.   Hence,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the
aforesaid witness does not inspire confidence for us to rely on the
same.
30

43.     Coming to the testimony of the PW­14 (Umed Singh), the defense
has   tried   to   exposé	  the   aforesaid   witness   on   certain
contradictions   and   improvements,   which   needs   our
consideration.   At   the   outset,   they   question   the   presence   of   the
aforesaid witness at Hisar, as the veracity of him being a chance
witness is questionable. Learned senior counsel for the accused­
appellant,   has   strenuously   contended   that   PW­14   is   a   chance
witness, and contends that not much reliance may be placed on
his statement. 
44. Generally,   the   chance   witness,   who   reasonably   explains   his
presence   in   the   named   location   at   the   relevant   time,   may   be
taken   into   consideration   and   should   be   given   due   regard,   if   his
version   inspires   confidence   and   the   same   is   supported   by
surrounding   circumstances.   Nonetheless,   the   evidence   of   a
chance   witness   requires   a   very   cautious   and   close   scrutiny.   A
chance   witness   must   adequately   explain   his   presence   at   the
place   of   occurrence   [ refer   Satbir   v.   Surat   Singh ,   (1997)   4   SCC
192;   Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab , (2004) 11 SCC 253].
Deposition   of   a   chance   witness   whose   presence   at   the   place   of
31

incident   remains   doubtful   should   be   discarded   [ refer
Shankarlal   v.   State   of   Rajasthan ,   (2004)   10   SCC   632].   The
behavior   of the  chance  witness, subsequent  to  the  incident may
also   be   taken   into   consideration   particularly   as   to   whether   he
has informed anyone else in the village about the incident. [ refer
Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2005) 9 SCC 650].
45.    It may be noted that the (PW­14) has not explained as to why he
was   standing   near   the   Bristol   Prison   so   early   at   4:00  AM   in  the
morning   of   a   peak   winter   day,   when   the   first   bus   to   the   village
was   at   7:00   AM.   Moreover,   it   is   doubtful   that   A­3   would   have
brandished   a   gun,   while   travelling   in   the   auto­rickshaw.   It   is
suspicious   that   even   after   getting   to   know   that   Chander   Bhan
was killed at Hisar, PW­14 did not reveal to anybody that he saw
the   deceased   in   the   company   of   the   accused­appellant   in   the
morning travelling towards Hisar. Indeed, it is quite unbelievable
that a man, during peak of north Indian winter, would wait at 4
A.M for a bus, which is scheduled to leave at 7:00 AM morning.
These   suspicious   circumstances   impugn   the   general
32

trustworthiness   of   PW­14.   Therefore,   this   Court   cannot   accept
the evidence of this witness as being credible.
46.       Now   coming   to   the   evidence   of   Zile   Singh   (PW­16).   He   narrates
that the three accused met him in the bus stop on the morning of
25.12.1993, when they confessed to their crime individually. We
may   note   that   his   statements   are   ridden   with   following   un­
clarified doubts­
a. That   the   Zile   Singh   (PW­16)   accompanied   the   accused,
after   they   confessed,   from   the   bus   stand   to   the   police
station.
b. Not taking the accused to the Police personnel present in
the Bus stand.
c. That his presence in the police station itself is suspicious
as   the   I.O.   Bhim   Singh   (PW­15)   has   contradicted   Zile
Singh (PW­16) on this aspect.
d. That there is no signature of Zile Singh ( PW­16 ) on any of
the documents in the Police Station.
In   light   of   these   circumstances,   we   need   to   be   cautious   in
considering the statements of this witness.
47.     Now   we   need   to   concentrate   on   the   relevance   of   the   alleged
confessions of the co­accused made before Zile Singh ( PW­16 ). In
Re   Periyaswami   Moopan,   AIR   1931   Mad.   177,   Reilly   J.
33

observed   “where   there   is   evidence   against   the   co­accused
sufficient,   if   believed,   to   support   his   conviction,   then   the   kind   of
confession   described   in   Section   30   may   be   thrown   into   the   scale
as an additional reason for believing that evidence”.  Therefore, the
aforesaid   extra­judicial   confession   against   the   co­accused   needs
to   be   taken   into   consideration   if   at   all   it   is   one,   only   if   other
independent   evidence   on   record   have   established   the   basic
premise   of   the   prosecution.   The   confession   of   the   co­accused
cannot   be   solely   utilized   to   convict   a   person,   when   the
surrounding   circumstances   are   improbable   and   creates
suspicion. [ refer  Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar ,  AIR 1964
SC   1184].   As   the   confession   of   a   co­accused   is   weak   piece   of
evidence, we need to consider whether other circumstances prove
the prosecution’s case.
48.    On the aspect of recovery of pellets from a house at Adarsh Nagar,
Hisar, it is an argument of the learned senior counsel, appearing
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   accused,   that   the   FSL   Report
indicating   the   possibility   of   pellets   being   fired   from   the   gun
recovered   from   the   confession   of   accused   A­3,   should   not   be
34

considered   as   the   person,   who   made   the   report   was   not
examined­is of some relevance. The FSL report forms part of the
evidence,  which   is  shown   to   point   out   that   the   crime  had   taken
place in the house at Adarsh Nagar, Hisar and gun of 0.15 bore
belonging   to   A­3   was   used   for   the   same.   The   prosecution   was
expected   to   examine   the   author   of   the   report,   and   non­
examination   of   the   same   is   a   fatal   error   in   the   case   at   hand.
Moreover, at the scene of occurrence, there was no blood or foot
marks found, which is apparent from the evidence of PW­8.
49.      The last circumstance, pointed out by the learned senior counsel
for appellant is that, if the intention of the accused­appellant was
indeed   to   murder   the   deceased,   then,   why   would   they   take   him
to   the   Hospital.   Thereby,   she   extends   this   argument,   to   portray
that the accused, never  had an  intention to  kill the  deceased. It
has not been explained by the prosecution, as to why such action
would   be   undertaken   by   the   accused   and   risk   taking   an   alive
person,   who   was   shot,   to   the   hospital.   The   contention   of   the
State that this was a diabolic act of perverted criminals, may not
fit the evidence available on record.
35

50.       In   line   with   the   aforesaid   discussion   on   various   circumstances,
we   may   now   identify   the   intermediate   circumstances,   which   we
are called upon to infer guilt from­
1.) On   15.12.1994,   there   was   a   local   election,   wherein   main
candidates   were   Maha   Singh   and   Dharampal   son   of   Beg
Raj.
2.) Chander Bhan (deceased) was the election agent as well as
the supporter of Maha Singh.
3.) On   the   day   of   the   election,   there   was   a   fight   between   two
factions, in which Maha Singh and one Darya were charged
for   firing   gun   shots   at   the   supporters   of   Dharampal   son  of
Beg Raj.
4.) Maha   Singh   lost   the   elections,   which   was   known   to   the
accused party as well as deceased.
5.) That Sobhat Singh [A­2], Dharampal son of Nanak Ram [A­
1]   and   Chander   Bhan   (deceased),   met   on   15 th
­16 th  
mid
night.
6.) Near   Hisar,   the   Chander   Bhan   was   seen   going   with   the
accused   around   the   time   of   the   incident.   [of   doubtful
veracity]
7.) Injured   Chander   Bhan   was   alive   when   he   was   brought   to
Hospital in Hisar by Sobhat Singh [A­1] and Dharampal [A­
2].
8.) Chander   Bhan’s   body   was   found   to   have   sustained   more
than fifty ante mortem gun shot wounds.
9.) Gun   and   pellets   were   recovered   from   an   abandoned   house
in Adarsh Nagar.
10.) Extra­judicial   confession   recorded   before   Zile   Singh   on
25.12.1994.
51.     From   the   aforesaid   circumstances,   we   may   note   that   the
hypothesis canvassed by the prosecution cannot be said to have
36

been   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt   as   there   exist   apparent
gaps   in   the   prosecution   story,   which   are   left   incomplete   or
insufficiently   proved.   In   Latesh   v.   State   of   Maharashtra ,   AIR
2018 SC 659, this court had observed the  ‘ When you consider the
facts,   you   have   a   reasonable   doubt   as   to   whether   the   matter   is
proved or whether it  is  not a reasonable doubt in this sense. The
reasonableness of a doubt must be a practical one and not on an
abstract   theoretical   hypothesis.   Reasonableness   is   a   virtue   that
forms   as   a   mean   between   excessive   caution   and   excessive
indifference   to   a   doubt.’     In   view   of   this   proposition,   we   accept
that   there   is   no   direct   evidence   which   led   the   prosecution   to
clearly   prove   that   deceased   was   shot   at   Adarsh   Nagar   in   Hisar.
Even   the   circumstantial   evidence   which   is   led,   has   gaps   in
between.   In   the   narration   above,   there   is   a   big   hiatus   between
the   time   the   accused   left   the  village   and   the   accused­appellants
were seen in the Hospital, at Hisar. Neither the intermediate facts
are   established   with   certainty,   nor   the   case   as   a   whole   is
established beyond reasonable doubt.
37

52.       We   may   note   that   every   acquittal   in   a   criminal   case   has   to   be
taken   with   some   seriousness   by   the   investigating   and
prosecuting authorities, when a case of this nature is concerned.
We are aware of the fact that there has been a death of a person
in this incident and there is no finality to the aforesaid episode as
it   ends   with   various   unanswered   questions,   which   point   fingers
at the lack of disciplined investigation and prosecution. Although
Courts   cannot   give   benefit   of   doubt   to   the   accused   for   small
errors   committed   during   the   investigation,   we   cannot   however,
turn a blind eye towards the investigative deficiencies which goes
to the root of the matter. 
53.      Now, coming to the case foisted against Dharambir, Umed Singh
and   Dharampal   (sarpanch)   sons   of   Beg   Raj,   in   Criminal   Appeal
No. 1458 of 2012 (Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997 in Sessions Trial
No.   97   of   1997).   The   prosecution   had   examined   PW­1   (Dr.   R.S.
Bishnoi),   PW­2   (Dr.   Surendra   Singh),   PW­3   (ASI­Jagbir   Singh),
PW­4   (Sobhat   Singh   [A­1])   and   PW­5   (Dharampal   son   of   Nanak
Ram   [A­2]).   While   the   defense   had   led   DW­1   (Kamla),   DW­2
38

(Umed Singh), DW­3 (Zile Singh), DW­4 (Mewa Singh) and DW­5
(Bhim Singh).
54.    We have considered the reasoning of the court below in this case,
which   we   accept.   Although   this   case   was   foisted   to   be   a   case   of
direct   evidence,   there   is   no   credibility   in   the   statements   of   the
accused­appellant   as   the   surrounding   circumstances   have
shown, as already indicated in the earlier parts of the judgment,
to be against them. We may note the golden rule of evidence that
‘men   may   tell   a   lie,   but   the   circumstances   do   not’,   which   is
squarely   applicable   in   this   case   at   hand.   Therefore,   we   cannot
also   accept   the   narrative   of   the   accused­appellant   in   the   other
appeals, as a gospel of truth.
55.       In   view   of   the   discussion   above,   we   allow   the   Criminal   Appeal
No(s).   1445­1446   of   2012,   before   us   and   simultaneously   set
aside   the   conviction   and   punishment   as   provided   by   the   Trial
Court in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995 in Sessions Trial No. 22 of
1995,     and     dismiss     the     Criminal     Appeal   No.   1458   of   2012.
39

Further   the   concerned   authorities   are   directed   to   release   the
appellants­accused, if not required in any other case.
……………………………..J.
( N. V. Ramana )
……………………………..J.
( Mohan M. Shantanagoudar ) 
A UGUST  21, 2018
N EW  D ELHI
40