Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 21-08-2018 in case of petitioner name Suresh and Anr. vs State of Haryana
| |

Panchayat Election Rivalry Leads to Murder: Supreme Court Acquits Accused

The case of Suresh and Anr. vs. State of Haryana revolved around the murder of Chander Bhan, allegedly committed due to a political rivalry following a panchayat election. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused due to gaps in the circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

Background of the Case

On 15th December 1994, a panchayat election was held in the village of Sundawas, where two main candidates contested: Maha Singh and Dharampal (son of Beg Raj). Chander Bhan, the deceased, was an election agent for the losing candidate, Maha Singh. The prosecution alleged that due to election-related enmity, the accused, Suresh and Sobhat Singh, lured Chander Bhan under the pretext of filing a counter-complaint against Dharampal and subsequently murdered him.

The trial court convicted the accused, relying on circumstantial evidence. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this conviction. However, the Supreme Court found serious flaws in the prosecution’s case and ultimately acquitted the accused.

Arguments Presented

Prosecution’s Argument

  • The accused planned to falsely implicate the winning candidate Dharampal in a criminal case.
  • Chander Bhan was taken to an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar, Hisar, where he was shot.
  • The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession made to PW-16, Zile Singh.
  • Witness Umed Singh (PW-14) saw the accused traveling with the deceased in an auto-rickshaw early in the morning.
  • The forensic report showed that the gun and pellets recovered from the crime scene matched those used in the murder.

Defense’s Stand

  • The accused had no motive to kill Chander Bhan, as he was their own supporter.
  • There was no direct evidence; the case relied purely on circumstantial evidence.
  • The testimony of PW-14 was unreliable as he claimed to have seen the accused at 4:00 AM in peak winter, waiting for a bus that departed at 7:30 AM.
  • The extra-judicial confession to PW-16 was highly doubtful.
  • Despite being injured, Chander Bhan was taken to a hospital by the accused, which contradicted the prosecution’s theory that they planned his murder.

Trial Court’s Verdict

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. It found that:

  • The accused had a clear motive of implicating their political rival.
  • The presence of the accused with the deceased before the incident was suspicious.
  • The recovery of the gun and pellets from the scene pointed towards their involvement.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court carefully examined the case and found substantial inconsistencies in the prosecution’s theory. The Court ruled:

“The hypothesis canvassed by the prosecution cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt as there exist apparent gaps in the prosecution story, which are left incomplete or insufficiently proved.”

The Court outlined several key reasons for acquitting the accused:

  • There was no direct evidence linking the accused to the murder.
  • PW-14’s testimony was unreliable, as his presence at the scene was questionable.
  • The extra-judicial confession was weak and did not inspire confidence.
  • The accused themselves took Chander Bhan to the hospital, which contradicts the prosecution’s case.
  • The forensic expert who prepared the ballistic report was not examined, making the evidence weak.
  • The investigating officer failed to provide a clear chain of events.

The Court further noted:

“Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the gaps in the evidence make it unsafe to convict the accused.”

Legal Significance

This judgment highlights the importance of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Court reaffirmed that mere suspicion, even if strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that courts must carefully scrutinize evidence before convicting individuals, especially in cases where the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence. The acquittal of the accused ensures that justice is upheld by preventing wrongful convictions based on incomplete evidence.


Petitioner Name: Suresh and Anr..
Respondent Name: State of Haryana.
Judgment By: Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Sundawas, Haryana.
Judgment Date: 21-08-2018.

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

Download Judgment: Suresh and Anr. vs State of Haryana Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 21-08-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2018
See all petitions in 2018 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

Similar Posts