CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M)

Reserved On : March 04, 2025

Decided On : March 18, 2025

Mangtu Ram ....Applicant

vs.

State of Haryana and others....Respondents

CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH.

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR .

* * *

Present :Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate

for the applicant (through VC).

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A. G. Haryana.

Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate

for respondents no.2 and 3.

* * *

SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. :

1. Applicant Mangtu Ram has preferred the instant application under

Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Special Leave to

Appeal against judgment dated 01.12.2016, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which respondents no.2 and 3 have been

acquitted of the charges framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. The factual scenario, as projected by prosecution, is that on

24.06.2014, one telephonic call was received from Control room at Police

Station, Pataudi that one person in injured condition was lying along with

the road near Shri Ram Public School, Uncha Majra. Upon this information,

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 2

Inspector/SHO Ranbir Singh along with SI Rasik Lal and Constable

Sandeep reached at the spot in Government vehicle. ASI Mukhtiar Singh

and Constable Surender were also present at the spot. Mangtu Ram son of

Ramji Lal met them and presented a written complaint to the effect that his

son Parveen, aged 23 years, was doing service at 3T Company, Baghanki as

a Driver. On 23.06.2014, at about 06:00 AM, his son Parveen had gone to

his company on his motorcycle. As his son got late while coming back from

his duty, so he contacted his son at about 07:45 PM on his mobile no.

90503-01891. His son told him that he was at his work place and would

reach the house within 20 minutes. They kept on waiting for his son the

entire night but he did not return. On the next day, at about 07:00 AM,

Gania @ Pawan Kumar son of Sultan, came to his house and told that his

son Parveen was lying in the fields of Satbir son of Mohan Lal and was

breathing heavily and to take care of him. He parked the motorcycle of

Parveen in his house. The complainant, along with Sarpanch Om Parkash,

Numberdar Daulat and Dev Karan reached at the spot, as told by Gania @

Pawan and found that Parveen was lying in injured condition and was

breathing heavily. They took him to Chauhan Hospital, Pataudi where he

was declared ‘brought dead’. They again took back dead body of Parveen

to the fields of Satbir and informed the police. It was alleged that the

complainant had suspicion that accused Pawan along with his friends firstly

made Parveen to consume beer and thereafter caused injuries to him and

then, drowned him in water. On the basis of these allegations, case under

Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. Thereafter,

investigation was conducted by Inspector/SHO. Rough site plan of place of

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 3

occurrence was prepared. Wooden pieces, chappal, beer bottles were taken

into police possession vide separate recovery memo. Statement of witnesses

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Accused were arrested and after

completion of investigation, the final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was presented in

the Court.

3. On finding a prima facie case punishable under section 302 IPC

read with Section 34 IPC against both the accused, they were charge-sheeted

accordingly, to which they did not plead guilty rather claimed trial.

4. As many as 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to

prove its case. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were

recorded while putting incriminating evidence against them, to which they

denied and pleaded innocence. In the defence evidence, the accused

examined Constable Ram Avtar as DW-1.

5. After considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Court

found the same to be woefully insufficient to convict the accused, who were

accordingly acquitted of the offences, for which they had been charge-

sheeted, vide impugned judgment dated 01.12.2016.

6. Aggrieved of the said decision, present application along with

appeal has been filed by the applicant/appellant, challenging acquittal of

accused – respondents no.2 and 3.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant has vehemently

contended that the findings of learned Trial Court are based on conjectures

and surmises and it does not form part of the prosecution case or that of the

defence that the deceased or accused were seen purchasing beer bottles or

consuming the same, which contained alcohol. The finding given by the

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 4

learned Trial Court is factually incorrect and false and is not borne out from

any evidence on record. PW-5 Daya Nand stated that he saw the deceased in

the company of accused near the liquor vend, while he was passing on the

road in front of liquor vend, but this witness or any other witness had never

stated that they saw the deceased or accused purchasing liquor or consuming

the same. Evidence of PW-5 was the last seen evidence and was not

regarding purchasing or consuming of beer/alcohol. As alcohol was found

present in the blood of deceased, so, there was no need to procure further

evidence regarding purchase of beer or consumption of liquor by the

deceased. He further argued that the Trial Court has completely rejected the

statement of PW-5 on the ground that the timings given by him did not

match with the timings given by the other prosecution witnesses. The said

witness was cross-examined on two different dates. On the first date, when

he was cross-examined, he was specifically asked by the counsel as to

whether he had consumed liquor, to which he replied that he had consumed

liquor during the previous evening and only due to this, minor discrepancies

have crept into the evidence of this witness. On the next day of his cross-

examination, he had given the correct timings and provided correct details.

He urged that even these minor discrepancies do not demolish the case of the

prosecution as the facts in issue and the related crucial facts stand

established beyond any reasonable doubt. PW-5 clearly stated that he had

seen the deceased in the company of accused persons when he was travelling

in his car. The non-examination of co-passenger of PW-5 does not create

any doubt about his deposition. He contended that delay in informing the

police is not such a long time so as to refute the entire case of the

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 5

prosecution. PW-2 asserted before the Court that he had forwarded this

application and it was recorded on the narration given by him and thereafter,

was signed by him. As such, no doubt remains about said application and

the contents and signatures stood completely proved by deposition of PW-2.

He also submitted that this finding of learned Trial Court is also incorrect

that the medical evidence does not corroborate statement of private

witnesses. The injuries on the person of the deceased stand fully proved

from the post-mortem report. Such like injuries could not be caused due to

any accident and could be caused only through deliberate efforts made by

some human agency. Only if the doctor had stated that possibility of

accident could not be ruled out, would not lead to the conclusion that the

injuries were caused by accident only. Wooden logs used to cause these

injuries were found in pieces showing the intensity of beatings given. He

further contended that the entire evidence on record has been completely

ignored and interpreted in most perverse manner while coming to the

impugned findings and has prayed that the present application seeking

special leave to appeal along with appeal be accepted and accused be held

guilty for offences, for which they have been charge-sheeted and be

punished according to law.

8. In order to prove its case, prosecution had examined PW-1

Constable Manoj Kumar, who deposed regarding delivering of reports of

this case to Illaqa Magistrate and other higher police officers without any

delay on his part.

PW-2 Mangtu Ram is the complainant in this case and is father of

deceased Parveen. He deposed as per averments given in his application

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 6

Ex.P-A. He stated that his son Parveen was aged about 23 years and was

working as a driver in 3T Company, Baghanki. On 23.06.2014, at about

06:00 AM, he went for his duty on his motorcycle. At about 07:45 PM, he

called him on his mobile to inquire as to when he would return, to which he

replied that he would be coming back within 15-20 minutes. They waited

for him for the whole night but he did not return. On 24.06.2014, at about

07:00 AM, Gania @ Pawan Kumar came to his house with the motorcycle

of his son and parked the same in his house and told him that his son

Parveen was lying in the fields of Satbir son of Mohan Lal and was

breathing heavily. Thereafter, the complainant along with Daulat Ram-

Numberdar, Om Parkash-Sarpanch and Dev Karan reached at the spot and

found Parveen lying there in injured condition and also noticed that blue

jeans along with belt, pair of slippers of Parveen, wooden pieces and empty

bottles of beer were also lying at the spot. Parveen was breathing slowly.

They took him to Chauhan Hospital, Pataudi where doctor declared that

Parveen had already died. They took the dead body back to the fields of

Satbir and placed it at the same spot. He was convinced that his son Parveen

was murdered by accused Pawan along with his associates by beating him

with dandas after making him consume beer. He moved application Ex.PA

to the police, which bears his signatures at point ‘A’.

PW-3 ASI Mukhtiar Singh is the Investigating Officer in this case

and deposed about the various investigating proceedings conducted by him.

PW-4 Constable Sandeep, who had joined ASI Mukhtiar Singh

during investigation, deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-3 ASI

Mukhtiar Singh.

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 7

PW-5 Daya Nand is a material witness of the prosecution, who

deposed that on 23.06.2014, his nephew Parveen had gone to the private

Company, where he was working. On that day, he noticed accused Pawan

along with Parveen on a liquor vend adjacent to petrol pump and thereafter,

Parveen never returned. On the next morning, Pawan @ Gania came to the

house of Mangtu Ram along with motorcycle of deceased Parveen and told

Mangtu Ram that Parveen was lying unconscious and was breathing heavily

at the tubewell of Mohan Lal. He, along with Dev Karan, Daulat Ram -

Numberdar, Meer Singh and other respectables of the village, reached at the

spot and found Parveen lying there dead. They noticed some wooden sticks

along with Khutda, bottles, blue jeans, slippers and belt of deceased lying

there. They shifted Parveen to Chauhan Hospital, where the doctor declared

him ‘brought dead’. Thereafter, they took the dead body back to the spot and

placed the same there and reported the matter to the police. He stated that he

noticed Parveen along with Pawan and Ved Parkash on motorcycle.

PW-6 Constable Sandeep Kumar deposed regarding recovery of

motorcycle bearing no. HR-72-3305, in pursuance of disclosure statement of

accused Pawan Kumar @ Gania.

PW-7 Meer Singh deposed that on 24.06.2014, accused Pawan @

Gania and Ved Parkash were interrogated in his presence and they suffered

disclosure statements regarding their involvement in this case.

PW-8 Dr.Pawan Chaudhary tendered in his examination-in-chief

his duly sworn affidavit Ex.P-K and proved post mortem report Ex.PK/1,

police request Ex.PK/2 and inquest Ex.PK/3.

PW-9 Dr. Sunil Kumar proved ruqa Ex.P-L sent to SHO of Police

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 8

Station Pataudi regarding information pertaining to lying of dead body of

Parveen son of Mangtu Ram from Pataudi, Bilaspur Road near Shri Ram

School.

PW-10 Kulvinder Singh deposed regarding receiving of telephonic

message from SDO Pataudi regarding lying of a man near Indian Oil Petrol

Pump by thinking that he was dead.

PW-11 ASI Shyam Singh deposed regarding recording of formal

FIR Ex.P-N on receiving ruqa Ex.P-A.

PW-12 HC Sandeep Kumar tendered in his examination-in-chief

his duly sworn affidavit Ex.P-O, qua deposit of case property.

PW-13 Siya Ram – Patwari deposed regarding preparation of Aks

Shijra Ex.P-P, on the asking of Investigating Officer.

PW-14 Arun Kumar – Block Development and Panchayat Officer

deposed that he had intimated the Police Control Room regarding lying of

dead body in a field near the road on the right side of Chandra Dairy.

PW-15 Inspector Ranbir Singh also deposed regarding various

investigating proceedings conducted during the investigation.

PW-16 Rasik Lal, who was posted as Additional SHO, Police

Station Pataudi on 25.06.2014, also deposed regarding various investigating

proceedings conducted during the case and regarding recording of disclosure

statements of accused Pawan @ Gania and Ved Prakash as Ex.PG and

Ex.PH respectively, in pursuance of which, he got recovered one motorcycle

of accused Ved Prakash and two dandas from village Bhiwadi, Rajasthan

Akera Road.

9. After having heard learned counsel for the applicant/complainant

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 9

at length and having perused the impugned judgment as well as other

relevant record, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution in the

instant matter was unable to prove its case against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt.

10. It is apparent from the evidence on record that it is not a case of

direct evidence as there is no such witness, who had witnessed the alleged

occurrence. It is well settled law that conviction can be based solely upon

circumstantial evidence, provided chain of circumstantial evidence is

complete and there should be no missing link in the chain of evidence.

11. In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and others (AIR 1990

Supreme Court 79), it was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when

a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the

following tests :-

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is

sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly

established,

(2) those circumstances. should be of a definite tendency

unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused.

(3) the circumstances. taken cumulatively should form a

chain so complete that there is no escape from the

conclusion that within all human probability the crime was

committed by the accused and none else, and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain

conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation

of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused

and such evidence should not only be consistent with the

guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his

innocence.

12. In Navaneethakrishnan Vs. The State by Inspector of Police,

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 10

Criminal Appeal No.1134 of 2013 decided on 16.04.2018 the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as under :-

“The law is well settled that each and every incriminating

circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and

clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must

form a chain of events from which the only irresistible

conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely

drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.

In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence,

there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may

take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself

that various circumstances in the chain of events must be

such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the

innocence of the accused. When the important link goes,

the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other

circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The court has to

be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion

to take the place of legal proof for sometimes,

unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between

moral certainty and legal proof. There is a long mental

distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and the

same divides conjectures from sure conclusions.”

13. Evidence in the present case is to be tested on the touchstone of

aforesaid principles. As per complaint Ex.P-A, given by PW-2 complainant

Mangtu Ram and as per his testimony in the Court, accused Pawan @ Gania

along with his friends firstly made Parveen consume beer and thereafter,

caused injuries to him resulting in his death. The Trial Court has rightly

held that no such evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution,

from which it can be inferred that the accused had made the deceased to take

beer with the intention to cause his death by inflicting injuries on his person.

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 11

Even there is no such evidence that the accused and deceased had together

consumed the beer.

14. PW-5 Daya Nand stated that he noticed accused Pawan and

Parveen near liquor vend on 23.06.2014 at 06:20 PM. Statement of this

witness is totally in contradiction to the statement of PW-2 Mangtu Ram,

who stated that at about 07:45 PM, he had made a phone call to his son

Parveen on his mobile phone, to which his son replied that he was at his

work place and would be coming back after 15-20 minutes. Thus, as per

testimony of PW-2 Mangtu, at about 07:45 PM, deceased was at his work

place when he answered the phone call made by PW-2 Mangtu, which is

totally in contradiction to statement of PW-5 Daya Nand that he had seen

accused Pawan and Parveen near liquor vend on 23.06.2014, while coming

back to Uncha Majra in his Alto Car at about 06:20 PM. This material

discrepancy in time has not been reconciled, especially when there is no

such evidence that at which time the deceased had left his work place, which

makes the entire prosecution story doubtful. It has adversely affected the

case of the prosecution when the two most material witnesses of the

prosecution i.e. PW-2 and PW-5 are contradictory to each other on the

aforesaid material point.

15. Said Azad, who was allegedly accompanying PW-5 Daya Nand,

while coming back to Uncha Majra on 23.06.2014, has also not been

examined by the prosecution, who could have been the material witness

regarding last seen of deceased in company of accused. Otherwise also,

PW-5 does not seem to be a reliable witness. During his cross-examination

conducted for the first time, he deposed that on 23.06.2014, he along with

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 12

Azad, was coming back to Uncha Majra at about 06:20 PM in his Alto car

when he saw accused Pawan and Parveen near liquor vend. His statement is

self-contradictory when he was further cross-examined on the next date and

stated that on 23.06.2014, he started from Pataudi at about 08:30 PM and

reached Uncha Majra at 10:30 PM. His veracity is shaken when he further

stated in his cross-examination that on the last date, he deposed that they

started for Uncha Majra from Pataudi at about 06:20 PM, which statement

was not correct. Thus, the prosecution has not been successful in proving

the last seen scenario by examining PW-5 Daya Nand, who is not only

contradictory to PW-2 complainant Mangtu but his statement itself is self-

contradictory.

16. Statements of PW-2 and PW-5 are contradictory, also regarding

other material points. PW-2 Mangtu Ram stated that on 24.06.2014, at about

07:00 AM, Gania @ Pawan brought motorcycle of his son and parked the

same at his house and apprised him that his son Parveen was lying in the

fields of Satbir and was breathing heavily and told him to take care of him.

Then he went to the said place along with others and found Parveen lying

there in injured condition. PW-5 negated the aforesaid statement of PW-2

when he stated in his cross-examination that on 24.06.2014, he came to

know about the incident at 06:00 AM from Sunita, wife of PW-2 Mangtu

Ram. He has categorically stated that Sunita came to his residence and told

him about the incident and also told him that her husband had gone to the

doctor for treatment of his daughter. Thus, if PW-5 is to be believed, then

entire version of PW-2 is falsified that on 24.06.2014, at about 07:00 AM,

Gania @ Pawan allegedly brought motorcycle of his son at his residence and

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 13

apprised him regarding lying of his son in an injured condition in the fields

of Satbir. PW-5 further stated that Sunita had gone to the spot at 07:00 AM

along with him and they had not waited for Mangtu Ram. Thus, he has

specifically denied that Mangtu Ram was present at the spot. He also could

not tell who called Om Parkash Sarpanch and Daulat Ram - Numberdar to

spot.

17. He also deposed that they took Parveen to Chauhan Hospital and

after arrival of police, they had taken Parveen to G.H. Pataudi. Police had

reached the spot at 07:30 AM but PW-2 Mangtu had not informed the

police. Investigating Officer PW-15 Inspector Ranbir Singh has deposed in

his cross-examination that he received the information at about 09:10 AM

when he was alone in the office. PW-14 Arun Kumar BDPO, examined by

the prosecution, has given another version while stating that on 24.06.2014,

he was going to Gurgaon and when he reached near petrol pump, he found

crowd of people present near the road and on inquiry, he was told that a dead

body was lying there and then, he intimated the police control room on 100

number. It has caused a dent in the prosecution story that if Parveen was

declared dead at Chauhan Hospital at 07:00 AM, then why police was not

informed till 09:10 AM.

18. As per PW-2 Mangtu Ram, they informed the police and on

arrival of police at the spot, he moved application Ex.PA, while PW-5 Daya

Nand in his cross-examination stated that they did not inform the police at

the spot because deceased was lying semi-conscious and he removed the

deceased to Chauhan Hospital in Scorpio car being driven by Rajender and

there, Parveen had expired and then, villagers had informed the police

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 14

immediately from Chauhan Hospital. It has also not been explained that

why Chauhan Hospital had not informed the police regarding death of

Parveen. PW-5 stated in his cross-examination that police had recorded

statement of Mangtu (PW-2) in Police Station. If he is to be believed

regarding it, then it creates a serious doubt regarding veracity of statement of

PW-2 Mangtu and entire prosecution version which is in complete

contradiction to aforesaid statement of PW-5 Daya Nand.

19. PW-5 also stated in his cross-examination that all the documents

were signed by him in the police station on the asking of police and no

statement was recorded by the police regarding removal of dead body to

Chauhan Hospital as well as to G.H. Pataudi. PW-15 Inspector Ranbir

Singh is contradictory to him when he stated that they reached at the place of

occurrence at 09:25 AM and Jai Singh, Meer Singh, Daya Nand and

Sarpanch of the village were present there and he recorded the statement of

Daya Nand at the place of occurrence, which has been denied by PW-5.

20. There are also major contradictions in the deposition of official

witnesses. PW-15 deposed that he did not record statement of PW-2

Mangtu Ram, father of deceased as he had gone on leave. PW-16 Rasik Lal,

next Investigating Officer is also silent regarding recording statement of

Mangtu. So, nowhere it has been disclosed that who had recorded the

statement of Mangtu Ram.

21. PW-15 Inspector Ranbir Singh deposed in his examination-in-

chief that he sent the dead body for postmortem through SI Mukhtiar and

Constable Surender and on the same day, he arrested accused Pawan and

Ved Parkash. In cross-examination, he deposed that he arrested accused

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 15

Pawan and Ved Parkash from Bus stand, Pataudi at 05:00 PM, whereas

PW-7 Meer Singh has stated in his cross-examination that on 24.06.2014 at

about 08:30 AM, accused Pawan himself came in the Police Station and

PW-2 complainant Mangtu, PW-5 Daya Nand and PW-7 Meer Singh were

present there in morning hours. So, these official witnesses differed

regarding the manner in which the accused was arrested.

22. It also emerges from the prosecution evidence on record that the

medical evidence is not corroborating the oral testimony of the prosecution

witnesses. PW-8 Dr. Pawan Chaudhary, who conducted post-mortem on the

dead body of the deceased, stated in his cross-examination that death of

deceased was within few minutes after sustaining injuries and all these

injures were possible if deceased had fallen on hard surface. He also stated

that possibility could not be ruled out that deceased could have died due to

the injuries suffered in a road side accident. He also specifically stated that

no water was present in the lungs of the deceased.

The perusal of the post-mortem report Ex.PK/1 reveals that the

injuries on the person of deceased were not on the vital parts of the body.

The post-mortem of deceased was conducted at 02:00 PM on 24.06.2014

and as per the post-mortem report, death occurred between 12 to 24 hours

ago from the postmortem. It is again contradictory to statement of PW-2

Mangtu Ram – father of the deceased, who categorically stated that when he

reached at the spot at 07:00 AM, his son was breathing slowly, meaning

thereby that deceased Parveen was alive at that time.

PW-5 Daya Nand also stated that at that time Parveen was alive

and he was taken to Chauhan Hospital. Thus, as per aforesaid two witnesses

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 16

of prosecution, Parveen was alive at 07:00 AM and post-mortem was

conducted at 02:00 PM i.e. after six hours, whereas doctor opined that death

occurred approximately between 12 to 24 hours ago from the post-mortem

examination and he had died within few minutes of injuries. When medical

evidence is not corroborating the ocular evidence, then this important link in

the chain of circumstantial evidence is missing.

23. As per the prosecution version, the wooden pieces were recovered

from the spot, which were used by the accused to cause injuries to deceased

Parveen. But the evidence in this respect is lacking that wooden log was

used to inflict injuries on the person of deceased or that wooden log was

reduced to 15 pieces, which were allegedly recovered from the spot.

Moreover, these wooden pieces were not produced before the doctor

concerned to take his opinion that the injuries on the person of deceased

could be possible with wooden log. So, these wooden pieces allegedly

recovered from the spot cannot be connected with the offence, allegedly

committed by the accused in the present case.

24. The prosecution also relied upon the recovery of motorcycle

bearing No. HR-72-3305, alleging that this motorcycle was parked in the

house of deceased Parveen at 07:00 AM on 24.06.2014 by accused Pawan.

So, when as per prosecution version, the accused himself had come to the

house of the complainant and informed him that Parveen was lying in

injured condition and advised them to take care of him and himself parked

motorcycle of deceased there, then it cannot be said that said motorcycle was

recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused and said recovery

does not fall within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 17

official witness PW-4 Constable Sandeep is contradictory to his previous

statement regarding recovery of aforesaid motorcycle when he stated that the

same was recovered from southern wall of Kochit company but thereafter,

he stated that as per the site plan Ex.PJ/2, the recovery of said motorcycle

was shown from the northern wall of Kochit company. He also stated that

one danda was tied with rope on the back side of motorcycle. PW-16 SI

Rasik Lal, the Investigating Officer of the case, also stated in his cross-

examination that said wooden log placed on the bike was untied and such

type of wooden logs were easily available in the market. The wooden danda

was not having any blood stains and was infected with termite. As such, it

cannot be believed that such wooden danda was used in inflicting injuries to

the deceased, resulting in his death. He further stated that accused Ved

Parkash was arrested only on the basis of disclosure statement of Pawan @

Gania on 24.06.2014 and except this, nothing was against him.

25. Prosecution is under obligation to prove each and every ingredient

of offence beyond any doubt. It was held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in

Datar Singh Versus State of Punjab 1974 Crl. L.J. 908 that, “the judicial

process can only operate on the firm foundations of actual and credible

evidence on record. Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances cannot

relieve the prosecution of its primary duty of proving its case against an

accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed

by sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of the very reprehensible

crime of patricide. They cannot even act on some conviction that an accused

person has committed a crime unless his offence is proved by satisfactory

evidence of it on record”.

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 18

26. Gainful reference can also be made to Narain Versus State of

Madhya Pradesh 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 837 wherein Hon'ble the

Supreme Court held that “where genesis of the incident, place of incident

and the manner in which the incident took place, was found not to have been

established by cogent and creditable prosecution evidence, accused are

entitled to be acquitted”.

27. It was held in Swaran Singh Versus The State of Punjab 1957

AIR 637 (SC) that, “the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be

true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the

whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable

evidence”.

28. In the instant case, as already observed, that there are gaping holes

in the chain of link evidence. Chain of circumstantial evidence is not so

complete to link the accused with the commission of offence, so as to point

conclusively to the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and to no other

conclusion.

29. It is a settled proposition of law that an order of acquittal is not to

be interfered with lightly because presumption of innocence of the accused

is further strengthened by acquittal. Interference is called for only under

compelling circumstances, where impugned findings are perverse,

unreasonable and convincing material on record is ignored unjustifiably by

the trial Court. Merely because another view may be possible is not

sufficient to cause interference. Reference in this regard can be made to

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Mahamadkhan Nathekhan vs.

State of Gujarat' 2014 (14) SCC 589. Learned counsel for the appellant was

CRM-A-376-MA-2017 (O&M) 19

unable to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned

decision dated 13.05.2022, which calls for any interference.

30. After analyzing the evidence on record, it can safely be concluded

that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Evidence on record is indeed insufficient to convict the

accused of the offence as charged with and they have been rightly acquitted

by learned trial Court.

31. No other argument was raised.

32. In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of leave to

appeal against acquittal of respondents no.2 and 3 and therefore, leave to

appeal is dismissed.

33. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR SINGH)

JUDGE JUDGE

March 18, 2025

monika

Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.

Whether reportable ? Yes/No.