Suspicion, Howsoever Strong, Cannot Substitute Proof: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Death Row Convicts
The Court allowed appeal filed by two men accused of kidnapping a young woman in a car, sexually assaulted her, and then murdered her using bricks.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete, unbroken chain of events leading unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. In the absence of such a chain, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused, regardless of the gravity of the offence.
A Bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi and Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill observed, “There is some suspicion regarding the accused having committed the offence. However, the chain of circumstantial evidence available on record is not so complete so as to conclusively and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused.”
The Court added, “We are conscious of the heinous nature of the offence but at the same time, the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt which it has been unable to do. In fact, from the evidence on record, there is no evidence of the deceased having been kidnapped, intoxicated, subjected to gang rape and thereafter murdered by none other than the present accused.”
Advocate J.S. Mehandiratta appeared for the Appellants, while Deputy Advocate General (Haryana) Munish Sharma appeared for the State.
Brief Facts
The prosecution alleged that the Appellants kidnapped a young woman in a car, sexually assaulted her, and then murdered her using bricks. The dead body was allegedly recovered from a field. The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence including recoveries of bloodstained clothes, bricks with blood stains, a semen-stained underwear and trouser, and call detail records showing communication between the accused and the deceased.
The Trial court convicted the Appellants and awarded them the death penalty, holding that the crime was of a heinous nature and fell within the “rarest of rare” category. Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the High Court challenging the order of the Trial Court.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the five principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench held that the chain of circumstances in the present case was incomplete.
On the call detail records relied upon by the prosecution, the Court observed, “These calls raise some suspicion but nothing more. The presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the accused appellant but suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a substitute for proof of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
Regarding the recoveries made at the instance of the accused, the Court held, “There is no link evidence as to how the shirt and trouser recovered on the disclosure statement of Sumit @ Fundi and found to contain the blood of the deceased reached the FSL, Madhuban.”
“The blood-stained clothes of the accused and the blood-stained bricks all allegedly containing the blood of the deceased are not free from doubt”, the Court added.
Criticising the evidentiary value of the semen-stained garments, it observed, “The recovery of a semen-stained underwear of Sumit @ Fundi and semen-stained trouser of Vikas @ Lalu also does not further the prosecution case in the absence of any such semen stains being found on the deceased.”
The Bench noted serious lapses in the chain of custody and in the forensic linkage between the accused and the crime. “The alleged recovery of bricks stained with the blood of the deceased does not inspire confidence. There is nothing to show how the blood-stained bricks reached the FSL and the absence of photographs or independent witnesses casts doubt”, it added.
The Court observed that there was no direct evidence regarding the presence of the accused at the time and place of the incident, and the call details and recoveries merely raised suspicion, but did not prove involvement beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, and set aside the conviction and the death sentence of the Appellants
Cause Title: Sumit @ Fundi & Anr. v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:071154-DB)
Appearance
Appellants: Advocates J.S. Mehandiratta, E.A. George, Randeep Singh Dhull
Respondent/State: DAG (Haryana) Munish Sharma