Dhan Raj @ Dhand vs State Of Haryana

4. The case of the prosecution revealed in the first appeal (being Crl.A. No.1410 of 2010) is that the deceased Vijaypal was serving a doctor who was posted in the Dispensary of Village Kheri Jat and residing at Jhajjar. On January 24, 1997 he left for his dispensary from his home at 9.45 a.m. by a Maruti car which did not have a registration number. Sukhbir Singh (PW 13), a dispenser posted at Kheri Jat informed Harpal Singh (PW 6), brother of deceased that the dead body of Vijaypal was found in a field of village Bizidpur where Harpal Singh went with Sukhbir Singh and found the body in a side posture bearing injuries from a sharp-edged weapon. There was blood on the ground and the Maruti car was found to be missing. Harpal Singh filed an FIR and investigation was initiated. Post mortem was also performed. The wife of the deceased disclosed that the deceased had with him a briefcase and a wrist-watch when he left home. Co-accused Sanjay, while in custody of Delhi Police for a different case, made a statement about the occurrence of this case. Subsequently, his production warrants were obtained and he was arrested for the present murder on February 4, 1997. Sanjay in his disclosure statement states that Dhan Raj and Badal, the appellants herein, were associated with him in the commission of the crime and that Dhan Raj had taken away the briefcase and Badal took the wrist-watch of the deceased. Furthermore, in his statement, Sanjay disclosed that he had concealed a Kirpan along with his blood stained clothes near Sadli Road, and he got the same articles recovered as well. Dhan Raj and Badal were arrested on February 4, 1997 and recovery of briefcase and wrist-watch was effected. Subsequently, on completion of investigation, a challan was presented in the court.

5. The case of the prosecution in the second appeal is also the same. However, the accused were tried separately as the accused Badal was arrested later.

6. After perusing the material brought on record, we would narrate the facts as they appear to us. However, as the preliminary facts are the same, for convenience’s sake, they are narrated from the trial in Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2010 and the trial in Criminal Appeal No. 703 of 2011 will be discussed separately.

1. Vijaypal (the deceased herein) was posted as a doctor in the Kheri Jat village dispensary and he was residing at Jhajjar. As per the statement of Raj Singh (PW 15), who was the elder brother of the deceased and stayed in the deceased’s house, on January 24, 1997 at about 9.45 a.m., Dr. Vijaypal left his home for the dispensary in his Maruti car, the registration of which was awaited; that after a few minutes, the accused Sanajay, Dhan Raj and Badal in a four-wheeler reached the deceased’s home and inquired about him and disclosed their names afterwards, whereafter they immediately left towards Delhi. Later in the day, Sukhbir Singh (PW 13) a dispenser posted at Village Kheri Jat, informed Harpal Singh (PW 6), the younger brother of the deceased, and the complainant that the dead body of Vijaypal was found lying in the wheat crop bearing injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon with blood on the ground nearby and the car of the deceased was also found to be missing. On the basis of the statements of Harpal Singh, FIR No. 26 of 1997 was registered and investigation was initiated with the conduction of the post-mortem and the recording of statement of the witnesses by the Investigating Officer.

2. The statement of the wife of the deceased being PW 7 which was corroborated with the statement of Sub-Inspector Brij Pal (PW-10) revealed that the deceased also had with him a wrist watch and a briefcase when he had left his home, which were also missing. On the next day, accused Sanjay was arrested by the Delhi Police in a case under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of FIR No. 32 of 1997 and from him, the car of the deceased (determined after the engine and chassis-number of the car were tallied) was recovered. While in custody of Delhi Police, he made a statement about the present case on January 25, 1997. In the said statement, it must be noted that he named one Rohtas as his accomplice and stated that Rohtas only took the wrist-watch and the briefcase of the deceased.

4. Furthermore, Sanjay’s disclosure led to the recovery of a Kirpan concealed by him and blood-stained clothes, as specified in the statement. The blood on the Kirpan was found to be human blood by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. It appears that the accused Dhan Raj was also arrested on February 4, 1997 and the recovery of the briefcase was effected. Accused Badal remained absent during the trial inspite of issuance of warrant of arrest and he was declared a proclaimed offender but he was arrested later and subsequently the recovery of the wrist-watch was effected. The briefcase and the wrist- watch were duly identified by Shanti Devi (PW 7) as possessions of the deceased.

9. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the Trial Court acquitted the accused appellant and concluded that charges against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the case of the prosecution was highly doubtful and that PW9 to PW18, who were the material witnesses, did not give any material and conclusive evidence against the accused appellant.

10. Aggrieved by the judgments of the trial court, accused appellant Dhan Raj filed Criminal Appeal No. 496-DB of 1999 and the State of Haryana filed Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of 2009 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court in its impugned judgment held that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and that in the backdrop of the existing facts the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and the involvement of the accused in robbery and commission of murder and robbery is established. Thus, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant accused Dhan Raj and convicted the appellant Badal on same grounds as those of Dhan Raj and Sanjay.

7. The High Court convicted the accused appellants and Sanjay the other co- accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence. However, we will confine ourselves only to the circumstantial evidence produced against the accused appellants. The High Court relied firstly, on the statement of the wife of the deceased Shanti Devi (PW7) wherein she stated that the deceased wore a HMT wrist watch gifted to him at the time of his marriage by her parents and was carrying a briefcase with the sticker of the initials ‘VPS’ when he left his house on January 24, 1997 and that the same were missing when the body of the deceased was found in the fields. Secondly, reliance was placed on the statement of the Raj Singh (PW-15), the brother of the deceased, wherein he has stated that when he was visiting his brother the deceased on January 24, 1997 after the deceased had left the three accused came to the deceased’s house and enquired about him after disclosing their names. Thirdly, the High Court relied on disclosure statement of the co-accused Sanjay on the basis of which the blood stained clothes and the Kirpan were recovered and he had stated that Dhan Raj had taken away the briefcase and the wrist watch was taken away by Badal. Fourthly, the High Court greatly relied on the two disclosure statements of the accused-appellants on the basis of which the recovery of the briefcase and wrist watch was made.

3. In the present appeals we therefore would evaluate the case of the prosecution in terms of the evidence brought on record and the statements and discovery made in the course of investigation.

11. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that reliance on the extra- judicial confession of the co-accused is misplaced.

18. Therefore, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the judgment and order of the High Court is set aside; the appeals are allowed and the accused are acquitted forthwith. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.703/2011 is already out on bail granted by this Court; the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1410/2010 is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

May 9, 2014.