/2022 INSC 0723/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 25 OF 2012
RAM NIWAS        ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA    ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. This   appeal   challenges   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Punjab   &   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   dated   16 th
March   2009,   thereby   dismissing   the   appeal   filed   by   the
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas,   which   was   filed   challenging   the
judgment and order dated 11 th
/12 th
 January 2005 passed by the
learned   Sessions   Judge,   Sonepat,   thereby   convicting   the
appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201
of  the   Indian   Penal  Code,  1860  (“IPC”  for  short)  and   sentencing
him   to   suffer   rigorous   imprisonment   for   life   and   to   a   fine   of
1

Rs.5,000/­,   in   default   of   payment   of   fine   to   further   undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302 IPC and
to suffer imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs.2,000/­
in   default   of   payment   of   fine   to   further   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment   for   one   year.     Both   the   sentences   are   directed   to
run concurrently.  
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is thus:
2.1 Deceased   Dalip   Singh,   Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10),   and   the
complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) are brothers.  Pale, son of
Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10),   was   married   to   Sunita,   daughter   of
Chander   Singh   and   the   sister   of   the   accused/appellant­
Ram  Niwas.   After  the  death  of Pale, his  wife Sunita  along
with   her   minor   son   went   to   her   parental   house   in   village
Rewli.     Deceased   Dalip   Singh,   Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10),   and
complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   wanted   Sunita   to   be
married to Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh.   As such,
on 7 th
 March 2003, all three of them had gone to the house
of   Chander   Singh,   father   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram
2

Niwas   with   the   proposal   of   remarriage   of   Sunita   with
Rampal son of deceased Dalip Singh. 
2.2 It   is   the   prosecution   case   that   all   three   of   them   reached
village   Rewli   and   went   to   the   house   of   Chander   Singh,
father of the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas at around 5.00
p.m.   on   7 th
  March   2003.   At   around   7.30   p.m.,   deceased
Dalip   Singh   and   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   started
taking   liquor   and   at   that   time   the   proposal   of   marrying
Sunita   with   Rampal   was   mentioned.     On   such   mention
being   made,   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   got   angry   and
started   abusing   deceased   Dalip   Singh.     However,
complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10)
intervened and pacified the accused/appellant­Ram Niwas.
Thereafter,   both   of   them   after   having   their   meals   went   to
the first floor to sleep.
2.3 On   the   morning   of   8 th
  March   2003,   at   around   6.30   a.m.,
when   the   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   and   Bhim
Singh (P.W.10) went to the drawing room of Chander Singh,
3

deceased   Dalip   Singh   was   not   seen   there.     They   asked
about   the   whereabouts   of   deceased   Dalip   Singh   from   the
accused/appellant­Ram  Niwas, who told them  that  he had
gone for answering the call of nature.  Both of them waited
for deceased Dalip Singh for about half an hour, but he did
not   return.   Therefore,   they   again   asked   the
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   about   the   whereabouts   of
deceased   Dalip   Singh,   but   they   did   not   receive   any
satisfactory reply.
2.4 It   is   further   the   prosecution   case   that   after   the
complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10)
came   to   the   courtyard,   they   felt   the   smell   of   the   burnt
human   body.     The   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   again
enquired   from   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   about
deceased   Dalip   Singh.   Then   the   accused/appellant­Ram
Niwas   became   nervous   and   replied   that   when   deceased
Dalip   Singh   had   proposed   to   marry   Sunita   with   his   son
Rampal   then   he   had   pressed   the   throat   of   deceased   Dalip
4

Singh   and   strangulated   him   to   death.     In   order   to   destroy
the   evidence,   the   dead­body   of   the   deceased   Dalip   Singh
was   burnt,   but   the   same   could   not   be   burnt   completely.
The   dead   body   of   deceased   Dalip   Singh   was   concealed   in
Paraal   (Paddy   Fodder).     Thereafter,   the   complainant­Deep
Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) after removing the
Paddy   straw   found   the   partially   burnt   dead   body   of
deceased   Dalip   Singh   wrapped   in   a   piece   of   Plastic   palli.
Thereafter, the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim
Singh   (P.W.10)   expressed   their   resentment   towards   the
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas,   and   on   hearing   their
resentment,   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   fled   away
from   the   spot.     The   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   and
Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10)   went   to   their   village   Bhawar   and
returned back with other family members to village Rewli in
the evening.  
2.5 The   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9)   lodged   a   report   with
the   Police   station   at   4.45   p.m.     On   the   basis   of   the
5

statement   of   the   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9),   a   First
Information Report (“FIR” for short) came to be registered at
5.00 p.m.
2.6 Upon   completion   of   the   investigation,   a   charge­sheet   came
to  be filed in the Court of learned  Judicial Magistrate  First
Class,   Sonepat.     Since   the   case   was   exclusively   triable   by
the Sessions Court, it came to be committed to the learned
Sessions Judge, Sonepat. 
2.7 Charges   came   to   be   framed   for   the   offences   punishable
under   Sections   302   and   201   of   the   IPC.     The
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   pleaded   not   guilty   and
claimed   to   be   tried.       At   the   conclusion   of   the   trial,   the
learned   Sessions   Judge,   Sonepat   passed   orders   of
conviction and sentence, as aforesaid.  Being aggrieved, the
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   preferred   an   appeal   before
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.  The
same came to be dismissed.  Hence the present appeal.  
6

3. We   have   heard   Mr.   Rishi   Malhotra,   learned   Advocate­on­
Record   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram
Niwas   and   Mr.   Birendra   Kumar   Choudhary,   learned   Additional
Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana.  
4. Mr.   Rishi   Malhotra,   learned   counsel,   submitted   that   from
the   perusal   of   the   postmortem   report,   it   is   clear   that   it   is   not
proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt   that   the   dead­body   on   which
the postmortem was conducted was of deceased Dalip Singh.  He
submitted   that   Dr.   Sanjeev   Malhotra   (P.W.5)   has   admitted   that
the   face   of   the   dead­body   of   which   he   had   carried   the
postmortem   was   not   recognizable.     He   therefore   submitted   that
in   the   absence   of   the   prosecution   proving   that   the   dead­body
was of deceased Dalip Singh, the conviction was not sustainable.
He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant­Deep
Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), which is relied upon by
the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as the High Court,
is   totally   unreliable.   He   submitted   that   the   conduct   of   the   said
witnesses   is   totally   unnatural.     He   submitted   that   from   their
7

evidence, it is seen that after they had seen the dead­body, they
went all the way to their village Bhawar and returned back in the
evening.     He   submitted   that   when   the   Police   Station   was   at   a
distance of about one and a half kilometers from the place of the
incident,   their   conduct   in   not   going   to   the   Police   Station
immediately   and   informing   about   the   incident   creates   a   serious
doubt about the prosecution case.  He therefore submits that the
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   is   entitled   to   be   acquitted   of   all
the charges charged with.  
5. Mr.   Birendra   Kumar   Choudhary,   learned   AAG,   on   the
contrary,   submitted   that   both   the   courts   below,   upon   correct
appreciation   of   evidence,   have   concurrently   found   the
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   to   be   guilty   of   the   offences
charged   with.     He   submitted   that   the   accused/appellant­Ram
Niwas   has   made   an   extra­judicial   confession   before   the
complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10).   He
submitted that the said extra­judicial confession is corroborated
by   the   recovery   of   ‘ash’   concealed   in   a   plastic   cover   on   the
8

memorandum   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   under
Section   27   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872   (“Evidence   Act”   for
short).     He   therefore   submitted   that   no   case   is   made   out   for
interference   with   the   findings   of   fact,   recorded   by   the   learned
Sessions Judge, Sonepat as well as by the High Court. 
6. To   examine   the   correctness   of   the   findings   of   the   High
Court, it will be apposite to scrutinize the evidence on record.
7. Dr.   Sanjeev   Malhotra   (P.W.5)   has   conducted   postmortem
examination   of   the   dead­body   of   deceased.     In   his   evidence,   he
stated that the dead­body was lying naked.  It was showing deep
burns   all   over   the   body.     It   was   also   emitting   the   smell   of
kerosene.     The   hair   and   scalp   were   missing.     Eye   balls,   eye­
lashes,   and   both   ears   were   burnt   out.     Both   lips   and   the   nose
were also burnt.  He has categorically stated in his examination­
in­chief   that   the   face  of   the   dead­body   could   not   be  recognized.
He   has   also   stated   in   his   examination­in­chief   that   both   feet
were   missing.   Dr.   Sanjeev   Malhotra   (P.W.5),   in   his   cross­
examination, has given a clear admission to the following effect:
9

“It   is   correct   that   the   body   was   not
recognizable.  ………..”
8. The   complainant­Deep   Chand   (P.W.9),   in   his   evidence,
states   that   on   7 th
  March   2003,   he   along   with   his   two   brothers,
namely,   Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10)   and   deceased   Dalip   Singh   had
gone   to   village   Rewli.     He   states   that   all   the   three   brothers   had
gone to village Rewli to ask for  Sunita’s hand in re­marriage for
Rampal,   son   of   his   brother   deceased   Dalip   Singh.       After
reaching   the   village   Rewli   at   around   5.00   p.m.,   they   met
Chander   Singh   and   his   son   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas.     He
further   states   that   after   some   time,   accused/appellant­Ram
Niwas   brought   a   bottle   of   liquor   and   he   along   with   his   father
Chander   Singh   and   his   brother   deceased   Dalip   Singh   started
taking   liquor.       He   further   states   that   upon   the   deceased   Dalip
Singh proposing the re­marriage of Sunita with his son Rampal,
there was a  minor  altercation between  them.   He states  that  he
and Bhim Singh (P.W.10) persuaded both sides to not fight. After
taking   their   meals,   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   told   him
and   Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10)   to   go   to   the   first   floor   to   sleep,   since
10

the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   and   deceased   Dalip   Singh
wanted to have some talk.   Thereafter, they went to sleep on the
first floor.  
9. Complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) further states that in the
morning   when   they   had   gone   to   the   drawing   room   of   the
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   at   around   6.30   a.m.   and   asked
about   their   brother   the   deceased   Dalip   Singh,   the
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   told   them   that   deceased   Dalip
Singh had gone to ease himself.   After waiting for about half an
hour,   when   deceased   Dalip   Singh   did   not   return,   they   again
enquired   from   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   about   the
deceased   Dalip   Singh.     Thereafter,   accused/appellant­Ram
Niwas   told   them   that   he   had   murdered   deceased   Dalip   Singh.
On being enquired about the dead­body of deceased Dalip Singh,
accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   told   them   that   he   had   kept   the
dead­body concealed in the paraal (paddy fodder).  They also felt
the   foul   smell   of   burning.     They   went   there   and   saw   the   dead­
body   of   deceased   Dalip   Singh,   wrapped   in   a   plastic   palli   and
11

lying   in   a   heap   of   paraal   and   also   in   a   burnt   condition.
Thereafter,   he   and   Bhim   Singh   (P.W.10)   ran   away   from   there
since   they   had   an   apprehension   that   accused/appellant­Ram
Niwas   might   kill   them   also.     He   states   that   they,   thereafter,
straightway   went   to   their   village   Bhawar   and   on   the   same   day
after   taking   4­5   persons   from   the   village,   he   came   to   Murthal
Adda   and   at   the   turning   of   Engineering   College,   they   met   the
Police and informed about the incident.  
10. In his cross­examination, complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9)
admitted that parents of Sunita had come to his village Bhawar
at the time of Chhamahi and  Barsi ceremonies of Pale.   He has
further admitted that they did not talk with the parents of Sunita
regarding   the   re­marriage   of   Sunita   with   Rampal   on   those
occasions.  He has further admitted that according to customs in
their   society,   the   remarriage   of   a   widow   or   Karewa   is   to   be
solemnized   on   the   occasion   of   Chhamahi   and   Barsi.     It   will   be
relevant   to   refer   to   the   following   admissions   in   the   evidence   of
the complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9):
12

“After   seeing   the   dead   body   we   not   raise   any
alarm   and   none   came   at   the   spot   in   our
presence.   Sunita   was   also   'present   in   village
Revli   on   that   day.   We   did   not   tell   even   to
Sunita or any body else in the village. We went
to our village Bhawar through a jeep and bus.
Police station Murthal is situated at a distance
of   one   and   ∙half   ∙kilometer   from   village   Revli.
We   did   not   inform   the   police   of   P.S.   Murthal.
We   reached   in   our   village   at   about   9:00   A.M.
We   came   back   in   a   jeep.   Subhash,   Ganga,
Prem,   Raju,   Sher   Singh,   Pappu   etc.   had
accompanied   us   to   village   Revli.   We   did   not
inform   any   police   station   which   falls   on   the
way   back   to   village   Revli.   However,   police
station Baroda, Gohana, Mohana, sonepat and
Murthal falls on the way.”
11. It   could   thus   clearly   be   seen   from   the   evidence   of   the
complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) that after seeing the dead­body
of   deceased   Dalip   Singh,   they   did   not   raise   any   alarm.     He   has
clearly   admitted   in   his   deposition   that   there   are   residential
houses   on   one   side   of   the   house   of   accused/appellant­Ram
Niwas.     He   further   admitted   that   they   reached   their   village
Bhawar at around 9.00 a.m.   They waited till 2.30/3.00 p.m. to
inform the Police.   He has further admitted that between village
Rewli   and   his   village   Bhawar,   Police   Station   Baroda,   Gohana,
13

Mohana,   Sonepat,   and   Murthal   are   on   the   way.     They   did   not
give intimation to any of these Police Stations either on their way
to village Bhawar or while returning to Murthal.  
12. The evidence of Bhim Singh (P.W.10) is to the similar effect.
13. Apart   from   the   ocular   testimony   of   the   complainant­Deep
Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim  Singh (P.W.10), the  only  incriminating
circumstance, on which the prosecution relies is the recovery of
‘ash’   and   ‘plastic   can’   on   the   memorandum   of   the
accused/appellant­Ram Niwas under Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. 
14. It   could   clearly   be   seen   that   even   according   to   the
complainant­Deep Chand (P.W.9) and Bhim Singh (P.W.10), after
they   saw   the   dead­body   of   the   deceased   Dalip   Singh   in   paraal
(paddy   fodder),   they   did   not   inform   anyone   in   the   village.     No
doubt that how a person responds to a situation is differ from a
person to person.   However, the conduct of the said witnesses in
not informing anybody in the village Rewli and thereafter going to
their   village   Bhawar   in   the   morning,   returning   back   in   the
14

afternoon   and   not   informing   five   Police   Stations,   which   were   in
between   village   Bhawar   and   village   Rewli   cast   a   serious   doubt
with   regard   to   the   truthfulness   of   their   version.     It   is   further
difficult   to   believe   the   testimony   of   these   witnesses   that   in   the
night, the deceased Dalip Singh was done to death, set on fire in
a paraal (paddy fodder) and they did not come to know about the
same till the accused/appellant­Ram  Niwas told  them  about the
same   next   morning.     In   the   evidence   of   these   witnesses,   it   has
clearly come out that there are houses surrounding the house of
the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas.     The   prosecution   version
appears improbable  that  such  an  incident took  place  in an  area
surrounded   by   houses.     The  prosecution   has   also   not   examined
any  independent  witness  residing  nearby   so as  to   lend credence
to the prosecution’s version.  
15. The prosecution relies on the extra­judicial confession made
by   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   to   these   witnesses.   This
Court   in   the   case   of   S.   Arul   Raja   vs.   State   of   Tamil   Nadu 1
,
1   (2010) 8 SCC 233
15

after   considering   the   earlier   judgments   of   this   Court,   has
observed thus:
“ 48.   The   concept   of   an   extra­judicial
confession   is   primarily   a   judicial   creation,
and   must   be   used   with   restraint.   Such   a
confession   must   be   used   only   in   limited
circumstances,   and   should   also   be
corroborated   by   way   of   abundant   caution.
This   Court   in   Ram   Singh   v.   Sonia   [(2007)   3
SCC   1   :   (2007)   2   SCC   (Cri)   1]   has   held   that
an   extra­judicial   confession   while   in   police
custody   cannot   be   allowed.   Moreover,   when
there   is   a   case   hanging   on   an   extra­judicial
confession,   corroborated   only   by
circumstantial   evidence,   then   the   courts
must   treat   the   same   with   utmost   caution.
This   principle   has   been   affirmed   by   this
Court   in   Ediga   Anamma   v.   State   of
A.P.   [(1974) 4 SCC 443 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 479]
and   State   of   Maharashtra   v.   Kondiba
Tukaram   Shirke   [(1976)   3   SCC   775   :   1976
SCC   (Cri)   514]   .   It   is   significant   to   observe
that   A­1   has   subsequently   sought   to   retract
this   statement   upon   his   arrival   in   Tamil
Nadu.”
16. We therefore find that it will not be safe to base conviction
solely   on  the  basis  of the  alleged  extra­judicial confession  made
by the appellant to these witnesses.  
16

17. The   only   other   circumstance   on   which   the   prosecution
relies   is   the   seizure   of   ‘ash’   kept   in   the   plastic   bag   on   the
memorandum   of   the   accused/appellant­Ram   Niwas   under
Section   27   of   the   Evidence   Act.       Satish   Kumar   (P.W.11),   the
Investigating Officer (I.O.), in his deposition has clearly admitted
that   the   disclosure   statement   made   by   the   accused/appellant­
Ram Niwas was made in the lock­up of the police station.  He has
further   admitted   that   though   independent   witnesses   were
available,   inasmuch   as   the   Police   Station   is   in   the   heart   of   the
city, he had not called any independent witness as ‘Panch’ of the
said   memorandum.     As   such,   the   reliance   on   the   said   seizure
also   is   of   no   help   to   the   prosecution   case.     It   is   further   to   be
noted   that   Dr.   Sanjeev   Malhotra   (P.W.5),   in   his   evidence,   has
admitted   that   it   was   difficult   to   recognize   the   face   of   the   dead­
body.     From   the   postmortem,   it   is   also   not   established   that   the
death was homicidal.  
18. The prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence.  The
law   with   regard   to   conviction   on   the   basis   of   circumstantial
17

evidence   has   very   well   been   crystalized   in   the   judgment   of   this
Court  in   the   case   of   Sharad   Birdhichand   Sarda   vs.   State   of
Maharashtra 2
, wherein this Court held thus:
“ 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   [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
to­date,   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   [AIR 1952 SC
343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
“It is well to remember that in 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
2   (1984) 4 SCC 116
18

guilt  of  the  accused.  Again, the circum­
stances   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.   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  
19

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.”
19. This Court has held that there has to be a chain of evidence
so   complete   so   as   not   to   leave   any   reasonable   ground   for   a
conclusion   consistent   with   the   innocence   of   the   accused   and
20

must  show that in all human probability the act must have been
done   by   the   accused.     It   has   been   held   that   the   circumstances
should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.   This Court has
held   that   the   circumstances   should   exclude   every   possible
hypothesis   except   the   one   to   be   proved.     It   has   been   held   that
the   accused   ‘must   be’   and   not   merely   ‘may   be’   guilty   before   a
Court can convict. 
20. It   is   settled   law   that   the   suspicion,   however   strong   it   may
be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.   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.  
21. In the present case, we find that the prosecution has utterly
failed   to   establish   the   chain   of   events   which   can   be   said   to
exclusively  lead  to  the  one  and  only  conclusion,  i.e., the  guilt  of
the   accused.     In   that   view   of   the   matter,   we   find   that   the
judgment   and   order   of   the   learned   Sessions   Judge   and   that   of
the High Court are not sustainable.  
21

22. The appeal is therefore allowed.  The judgment and order of
conviction   and   sentence   dated   11 th
/12 th
  January   2005   of   the
learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat and the judgment and order of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16 th
March   2009,   dismissing   the   appeal   of   the   accused/appellant­
Ram Niwas are quashed and set aside.   The accused/appellant­
Ram Niwas is acquitted of all the charges charged with. The bail
bonds shall stand discharged.  
23. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.  
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
………………....…….........................J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 11, 2022
22