IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. M 829 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION 27.3.2009 Happy ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr. Ak Jain, Advocate Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Hry M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner along with Billu is alleged to have strangulated Virender while sitting in the running van. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no direct evidence is available on the record but solely on the basis of confessional statement of Khushi Ram co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated in the case. The statement of Khushi Ram is not admissible being an accomplice. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the police file. Without expression of any opinion regarding the validity of the confessional statement, it is sufficient to observe that as per the post- mortem report and the medical record, there had been injuries on the neck of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the injuries on the neck are incised injuries. During investigation co-accused of the petitioner Khushi Ram seems to have voluntarily made a statement indicting the petitioner as an accused alleging that the petitioner had participated in the event of strangulation. No doubt circumstantial evidence is a weak type of evidence but chances of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out in case the petitioner is released on bail. Dismissed. It is also to pertinent to observe that only official witnesses remain to be examined. It will be appreciated in case the trial court expeditiously conclude the trial. March 27 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE