Supreme Court Acquits Man in Police Attack and Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence

The case of Parveen @ Sonu vs. State of Haryana revolved around a violent attempt to free undertrial prisoners from police custody, resulting in the death of a Head Constable. The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted the accused, ruling that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment underscores the necessity for strong corroborative evidence when convicting individuals in conspiracy-related crimes.

Background of the Case

On March 14, 2009, a police team was escorting four undertrial prisoners from Central Jail, Jaipur to be produced in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani. While traveling by train, the police team was ambushed at Nangal Pathani Railway Station by four unidentified men who threw chili powder at the officers and attempted to free the prisoners.

During the altercation:

• The assailants fired at the police, fatally injuring Head Constable Arjun Singh.
• The attackers attempted to snatch a police firearm.
• One of the accused, Vinod, was caught at the scene, while the other three fled.

Based on Vinod’s statements, the police arrested multiple individuals, including the appellant, Parveen @ Sonu, who was accused of being one of the conspirators behind the attack.

Trial Court and High Court Proceedings

The accused were charged under:

• Sections 224, 225, 332, 353, 392, 307, 302, 120-B of the IPC
• Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act

During the trial:

• The prosecution examined 23 witnesses, including police officers present at the scene.
• The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.
• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the conviction on March 17, 2020.

Aggrieved by the verdict, Parveen @ Sonu appealed before the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Arguments by the Appellant

The defense contended that:

• There was no concrete proof of Parveen’s involvement in the attack.
• The entire case against him relied on the confessional statements of co-accused, which are inadmissible as primary evidence.
• No independent witnesses were examined, despite the presence of over 50–60 passengers in the train compartment.
• The police had failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) to confirm the accused’s identity.
• He had already been acquitted in a separate case related to the same incident involving the alleged theft of a vehicle.

Arguments by the State of Haryana

The prosecution argued that:

• The attack was a pre-planned conspiracy to rescue undertrial prisoners.
• Parveen was a key member of the conspiracy and had actively participated in the attack.
• The statements of police officers who witnessed the event confirmed the appellant’s involvement.
• Confessional statements of the co-accused were admissible under Section 120-B IPC, proving a larger conspiracy.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

Failure to Establish Conspiracy

The Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of a criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment stated:

“To prove the charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, it is necessary to establish an agreement between the accused for committing an unlawful act. Mere association with other accused does not establish conspiracy.”

Lack of Corroborative Evidence

The Court noted significant gaps in the prosecution’s case:

• No eyewitness specifically identified Parveen @ Sonu at the crime scene.
• The prosecution relied entirely on confessions of co-accused, which were not supported by any independent evidence.
• Despite the presence of many train passengers, none were examined as witnesses.
• The police failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP), a crucial step in cases involving unidentified assailants.

Conviction Cannot Be Based on Confessional Statements Alone

The Court reiterated the principle that an accused cannot be convicted solely based on a co-accused’s confession:

“In the absence of independent corroboration, confessional statements made by co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction.”

Acquittal Ordered

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to meet the standard of proof required in criminal cases and ordered Parveen’s acquittal:

• All charges against the appellant were dismissed.
• The conviction and life sentence imposed by the lower courts were set aside.
• Parveen was ordered to be released immediately, unless required in another case.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Conspiracy charges require concrete proof: Mere association with criminals does not establish guilt under Section 120-B IPC.
2. Independent corroboration is crucial: A conviction cannot rest solely on confessions made by co-accused.
3. Failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade weakens the prosecution: When identification is in dispute, a TIP is essential.
4. Lack of independent witnesses raises doubts: The absence of testimonies from train passengers undermined the case.
5. Benefit of doubt favors the accused: If the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case reinforces the fundamental principle that criminal convictions must be based on strong, independent evidence. By acquitting the accused due to lack of corroboration, the Court has upheld the standard of proof necessary for a fair trial. This ruling serves as a reminder that allegations of conspiracy require solid proof, and courts cannot rely solely on co-accused confessions to convict an individual.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-grants-bail-in-uapa-case-emphasizes-right-to-speedy-trial/

Petitioner Name: Parveen @ Sonu.
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: Rewari, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 07-12-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: parveen-@-sonu-vs-state-of-haryana-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-07-12-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category