Ram Partap vs The State Of Haryana

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 804/2011

RAM PRATAP ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Order passed

by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, vide which it set

aside the conviction of the present appellant – Ram Pratap

under Section 120-B of IPC, while maintaining the conviction

for the offence under 302 of the IPC. The High Court also

confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment. In so far as the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Singh acquittal of the other accused are concerned, the High Court Date: 2022.12.14 09:57:56 IST Reason:

maintained the same.

1

2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that the deceased -

Om Prakash was on visiting terms with the present appellant/

accused- Ram Pratap. On 13th December 2007 at 10:00 AM, the

accused Ram Pratap visited the house of the deceased - Om

Prakash and after taking tea both went together. At 12

midnight, the present appellant - Ram Pratap along with others

came to the house of deceased with his dead body in a jeep. He

met Jagdish Chander (PW - 4), the brother of the deceased and

told him that the deceased died at his house. On the basis of

the complaint of Jagdish Chander (PW-4), an FIR came to be

registered. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet

was filed against the four accused persons.

3. In so far as the evidence of Jagdish Chander (PW - 4) is

concerned, when he reported the matter to the police on the

basis of which FIR was registered, he had only expressed a

suspicion against the present appellant. We further find that

there was a delay of 14 hours in reporting the incident to the

police.

2

4. The learned trial Court relying upon the evidence of PW-4,

PW-7 and PW-8 held that the prosecution has proved the case

beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant.

Further, on the basis of the same evidence, the Trial Judge

acquitted the other accused whose acquittal has been upheld

by the High Court.

5. The High Court, while confirming the conviction of the

appellant, relied upon the evidence of Jagdish Chander (PW-4).

Further, the High Court specifically records that Bhagwana

(PW-5), the brother-in-law of the deceased, who was the witness

to the last seen, has turned hostile and thus did not support

the prosecution case.

6. We have heard Mr. Mayank Dahiya, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Dinesh Chander

Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-

State.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

- State submitted that the High Court as well as the trial court

have grossly erred in convicting the appellant when there is no 3 evidence worth the namesake. The learned counsel for the

respondent – State submitted that the trial court as well as the

High Court has appreciated the evidence in the correct

perspective and no interference is warranted.

8. Undisputedly, the present case is a case based on

circumstantial evidence.

9. It has been held by this Court in a catena of cases

including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

reported at (1984) 4 SCC 116, that suspicion, howsoever strong,

cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court

has held that there is not only a grammatical but also a legal

distinction between ‘may’ and ‘must’. For proving a case based

on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution

to establish each and every circumstance beyond reasonable

doubt, and further, that the circumstances so proved must form

a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable

ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the

accused and must show, in all human probability, that the act

has been done by the accused. Further, it has been held that

4 the facts so established must exclude every hypothesis except

the guilt of the accused.

10. In the present case, if the evidence of Jagdish Chander (PW

- 4) is to be appreciated wherein he has stated that the accused

came to his house and informed him that he has killed the

deceased-Om Prakash, such statement does not find any

mention in the oral report. Apart from this, the delay of 14 hours

in lodging the oral report has not been sufficiently explained.

The only witness of the last seen theory, i.e. PW-5, has turned

hostile and has thus been disbelieved.

11. Apart from that, the trial court disbelieved the very same

evidence in so far as the other four accused were concerned.

The said acquittal has also been found to be valid by the High

Court.

12. In that view of the matter, we find that the High Court as

well as the trial court were not justified in convicting the

appellant. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted

of the charges. The bail bonds stand cancelled.

5

13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

…………………………….J. (B.R. Gavai)

…………………………..J. (Vikram Nath)

New Delhi;

01.12.2022

6