Case: SURESH  Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

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 asfor brevity] and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.Later, during the intervening night of 15th and 16th December of 1994, Dharampal alias Dharam son of Nanak Ram [accused, Sobhat Singh [accusedboth being supporters of losing candidate Maha Singh, came to the house of Chander Bhan, onthe 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 [accusedis supposed to have joined them.One Umed Singh son of Mahi Ramwhile waiting near Borstal Jail, Hisar for a conveyance at 4:00 A.M on 16.12.1994 (morning) had seen, Chander Bhan andgoing in an auto rickshaw. It is theversion that all of them went to an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar at Hisar, wherein Chander Bhan (deceased) was shot by the aforesaid accused.took injured Chander Bhan to the City Civil Hospital, Hisar for treatment. It is alleged that in the meanwhiletried 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.As per the narration of accusedon 16.12.1994, at about 4:30 A.M, the Chander Bhan (deceased),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 that2, who escaped the firing, rushed Chander Bhan to the City Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he succumbed to his injuries.The case was investigated by I.O. Bhim Singhwho reached the spot of the alleged occurrence as per the narration of accusedHowever, he could not trace any incriminating material as alleged. Being suspicious of the version of accused, the investigating police, started to investigate from different angles.On 25.12.1994, all thecontacted one Zile Singhand confessed their guilt before him. To put the gist of theirconfessions, it may be noted that the accused stated to Zile Singhthat having the motive to file a counter case against Dharampal son of Beg Raj, the Sarpanch, thealong with Chander Bhan reached an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar, Hisar and Sureshfired a shot at Chander Bhan in the house at Adarsh Nagar. Thereupon accusedfled away with the gun. Later, accusedtook 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.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 Singh1. After the completion of the investigation,came to be filed in the Court against the accusedfor 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.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) were being tried for usage of fire arms, which was consolidatedwith 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 as2. 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 asSobhat Singh. 302/34 IPCRI for Life and fine of Rs 5,000. In default, to suffer RI for 6 months. 302/34 IPC[2] S. 25 Arms ActRI for Life and fine of Rs 5,000. In default, to suffer RI for 6] RI for 1 year and fine of Rs 500, In default, to undergo RI for 15 days. Sentence to run concurrently.. 30, Arms ActFine of Rs 1,000. In default, to suffer RI for 15 days.It may be noted, that during the trial, accuseddied and the trial against him got abated. The Trial Court, held the accused guilty, and reasoned as) 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) 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 bywas relatively higher.4, 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 Singhhad noticed that Suresh was holding a single barrel gun.f) That the version of accusedwas not tenable due to many contradicting circumstances.g) That the accused had confessed their crime before Zile Singhwho 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.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.em report confirms the death to have been caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to gunshot injuries.Aggrieved by the fact that the complainant was himself shown as an accused by the investigating authority,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 accusedin FIR No. 736 dated 16.12.1994.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.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.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) That prosecution failed to establish motive on the part ofson of Beg Raj, as he has already won the election.b) That accused persons came at midnight4, 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 ofc) That the story of the prosecution that the deceased was shot on the road at a distance ofK.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 ofd) ThatUmed Singh corroborated that on 16.12.1994 at about 4:30 A.M. while waiting for conveyance to go to his village he had seenSingh, Dharampal sonof Nanak Ram and the Suresh who was carrying a single barrel gun along with the deceased in an) The complainant had taken deceased to the Hospital at 6: 30 AM. In2) and Dharampalcould 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 theirn how theappeared merely withinto take them to the Hospital at Hisar.g) The evidence ofson of Nanak Ram, is contradictory to2]) as to how they took the deceased to the hospital.h) That the complainants failed to state the number of vehicle, driver of the vehicle in theirThey 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 ofkm from the village.al confession was made beforej) That the gun recovered in the instant case was the gun belonging to complainant Sureshand 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.

Reasoning:
15 had also deposed that later, on 25.12.1994,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 noteief states that the Zile Singhleft the Police Station and did not wait till the completion of the interrogation. Whereas, in theexamination he contradicts himself that Zile Singhwas present during the interrogation of the5 also deposed that by virtue of the disclosure statements made by the individual accused persons, the recovery of the gun, cartridges, pellets and some concrete material from room and the khurli of the Adarsh Nagar House were made.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 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.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 of3 (wife of the deceased) is crucial. Her statements should be carefully appreciated. The statements, as indicated above, clearly 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.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.It may be noted that thehas 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 thatwould have brandished a gun, while travelling in theIt is suspicious that even after getting to know that Chander Bhan was killed at Hisar,did not reveal to anybody that he saw the deceased in the company of thein 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 general4. Therefore, this Court cannot accept the evidence of this witness as being credible.Now coming to the evidence of Zile SinghHe 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. That the Zile Singhaccompanied 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 Singhhas contradicted Zile Singhon this aspect.d. That there is no signature of Zile Singhon 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.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 accusedshould not be considered as the person, who made the report was notof 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 towas used for the same. The prosecution was expected to examine the author of the report, ande last circumstance, pointed out by the learned senior counsel for appellant is that, if the intention of thes 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 thedeceased. 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.From the aforesaid circumstances, we may note that the hypothesis canvassed by the prosecution cannot be said to have 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 theyou 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 aIn 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 thewere 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.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.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 theas 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 thatmay tell a lie, but the circumstances dowhich is squarely applicable in this case at hand. Therefore, we cannot also accept the narrative of thein the other appeals, as a gospel of truth.