Several Missing Links; Police Might Have Come Up With Story To Pacify Villagers: Supreme Court Grants Acquittal In 6-Yr-Old Boy’s Murder Case
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a murder case.
The Supreme Court has ordered the release of a convict undergoing incarceration of over 16 years for the murder of a 6-year-old boy. The Apex Court found several missing links in the chain of events and also stated that the police came up with a story that the case had been solved and the culprit caught with a view to pacify the villagers.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva held, “As noticed hereinabove, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the theory of last seen. We are of the considered opinion that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It has failed to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant. There are several missing links in the chain of events.”
“With a view to pacify the villagers, it is possible that the police came up with a story that the case had been solved and the culprit caught. The accused, on the other hand, was a poor labourer and may not have the sympathy of the villagers”, it added.
Factual Background
As per the FIR, Sub Inspector Surinder Singh received a telephonic message that a dead body of a child was lying in a well at village Kakru. He immediately reached the spot and recorded the statement of the father of the child, who stated that he has two sons and one daughter. It was alleged that his six-year-old son had gone to attend the marriage on March 11, 2007. When the son did not return, the father searched for him during the night. In the morning, he was told that the slipper of child was lying in the verandah of the post office. He immediately went to that place along with his brother and found the dead body of a child lying in the well.
The accused was produced before the Inspector by the Sarpanch of Village Kakru. According to one of the prosecution witnesses, the accused made an extra-judicial confession admitting to having committed the offence. The accused was thereafter alleged to have made a disclosure statement. The accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 201, 302 and 377 of the IPC. The Trial Court held the appellant guilty of the said charges. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and the theory of last seen. As per the Bench, there did not appear to be any reasonable explanation as to why the packet of namkeen which was allegedly found at the site was also seized. Since such packets were sold on a daily basis, the Bench could not find anything that would be so suspicious about an open packet of namkeen for the police to seize it.
The Bench was unable to find any reasonable explanation as to why the accused made an extrajudicial confession to the Sarpanch. The Trial Court held that the Sarpanch had intimacy with the police, and that was the reason why the accused went to the Sarpanch and made the confession. “Merely, because the accused did not have any connection with the Sarpanch, the Trial Court has held that the story of extra judicial confession appears to be true”, it added.
The Bench found that the theory of the prosecution that the accused and the deceased were last seen together was not borne out from the testimony of the witnesses. The Bench noted that the factum of a child accompanying the accused at the relevant point of time was not established by conclusive evidence.
The Bench explained, “Confession made to a police officer is not admissible, except in terms of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which lays down that when there is a discovery of a fact, in consequence of information received from an accused,so much of an information as distinctly related to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. In the present case no new fact is discovered. As per the prosecution the accused is alleged to have identified the spots, which as noticed above were already in the knowledge of the prosecution. Thus the alleged disclosure statement cannot be taken into consideration.”
As per the Bench, the Prosecution had failed to establish beyond any reasonable doubt, the connection between the accused and the victim; presence of the victim in the company of the accused at the relevant point of time and the very presence of the accused or any connection of the accused with the place of the incident. “There are serious doubts regarding the veracity of the prosecution case”, it held.
Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal by extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant and ordering his release.
Cause Title: Sahab Singh Alias Sat Pal v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation:2026 INSC 945)