The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a judgment of conviction against two persons in a murder case, stating that тАЬaccused can never be convicted in a case under Section 302 (murder) of IPC on the basis of conjectures and surmisesтАЭ.
The division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice N S Shekhawat passed the order while hearing the appeals of Jai Karan and Ram Karan, who moved the high court against their conviction by the trial court of Sonipat in Seema murder case. Seema was the wife of Jai Karan.
As per the case, an FIR was filed against Jai Karan and his brother Ram Karan by Muni Ram, who is the brother of Seema. The marriage of Jai Karan and Seema was solemnised in November 2008. It was alleged in the FIR that Jai Karan, Ram Karan and three others who were also residing in their parental house were not satisfied with the dowry given by SeemaтАЩs family.
On February 23, 2014, Muni Ram was informed over a phone call that Seema has died of burns. The phone call came around 2.30 pm, the FIR stated.
Muni Ram alleged in the FIR that all the five people had burned his sister to death for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, or she had committed suicide as she could not take their dowry harassment anymore.
After the FIR was registered and charges were framed, the trial court of Sonipat held Jai Karan and Ram Karan guilty of murder. However, the court acquitted Sunita, another accused in the case. Sunita is the sister of Jai Karan.
Later, Jai Karan and Ram Karan challenged their conviction in the high court.
After hearing the matter, the high court said, тАЬIn order to prove a convict under Section 302 of IPC, the first and foremost aspect to be proved by the prosecution is the factum of homicidal death. On facts held, if the evidence led by the prosecution falls short of the proof of homicidal death of the deceased, the convict cannot be held guilty of the charge under Section 302 of IPC.тАЭ
After perusing the impugned judgment of the trial court, the high court held, тАЬThe learned trial court, instead of referring to the prosecution evidence, has placed more reliance on the witnesses of the defence or on the simple denial by the accused/appellants in their defence. The courts must act with sensitivity and appreciate the evidence in totality of the background of the entire case and not in isolationтАж In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned judgment clearly shows that instead of referring to the prosecution case and its reliability, the learned trial court has simply considered the lacunas in the case of the defence which is not permissible in law. The accused can always remain silent during the course of trial and even if he/they had taken a false defence, the prosecution can never be absolved of its liability of proving the facts beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence.тАЭ
The high court said, тАЬThe learned trial court wrongly held that the accused/appellants were to explain as to how the deceased had sustained injuries and since they did not give any explanation about the cause of the death of the deceased and they had failed to offer an explanation in discharge of the burden placed upon them, it would provide an important link in the chain of circumstances against them.тАЭ
Regarding the motive in the case, the high court said, тАЬThe prosecution is under a bounden duty to prove the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime. It is a case, where the chain of circumstances was incomplete; the evidence led by the prosecution did not inspire confidence. Still further the prosecution had not led sufficient evidence to show that it was a case of homicidal death, the motive was the most important fact to be proved by the prosecution and failure to prove motive is fatal for the prosecution in the instant case.тАЭ
The HC added, тАЬIt stands established that the hypothesis put forward by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the appellants is based on conjectures and suspicions. Our judicial conscious is not satisfied that the circumstances of the case are so established that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all humane probability, the crime was committed by the appellants.тАЭ
The high court thus set aside the judgment of conviction dated September 25, 2015, and order of sentence passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, and ordered to release the accused from custody, if not on bail and if not required in any other case.
