Case: State of Haryana Vs. Jagbir Singh and Others

2. The dead body of the deceased Naresh Kumar with several incised gaping wounds was found on the morning of March 16, 1975 which resulted in an information to the Police by his father. The two accused were very friendly with the deceased and it was stated in the First Information Report that the deceased was last seen during the previous night with them. Suspicion naturally fell on them and investigation commenced.

Court's reasoning:
6. The High Court found a very serious infirmity in the entire prosecution case from an admission which had been made earlier by Sukhbir Singh (PW 18), the father of the deceased. From that statement the High Court found that Sukhbir Singh had admitted that the accused were arrested by the police in this case on March 16, 1975, the very day the dead body of his son was found at the Ram Lila Grounds. If the arrest of the accused on March 16 is true, as stated by Sukhbir Singh, not only theconfession of the accused before Deputy Prasad on March 18, 1975 but also the recoveries of theclothes and kirpans made by the police on March 18, 1975 following the alleged statements of the accused lose all credibility. This is the principal ground on which the High Court came to the conclusion that there was "padding" in the prosecution case and that certain evidence was fabricated in order to implicate the accused.7. There was a further fact which the High Court took into consideration. Narain Das (PW 7) and Shekhar Chand (PW 8) stated that the accused were last seen at 10.00 p.m. on March 15 with the deceased who was then wearingand pants". At thethe doctor fund "a shirt and pullover on the dead body". The High Court therefore rightly observed that possibility was not ruled out that the deceased went elsewhere with others after changing his dress after he was last seen by the witnesses with the accused.8. The High Court gave proper consideration to all the reasons given by the Sessions Judge and when the main planks in the circumstantial evidence gave way no conviction could be sustained. We find that the reasons given by the High Court for its conclusions are cogent and clinching and there was no other judicial alternative than to record an acquittal. The High Court has rightly interfered with the conviction in this case.