The Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant verdict on Monday, acquitting a Rohtak man previously convicted for his nephew's murder in 2014. The court ruled that the prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, which fell short of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Court Overturns Trial Court Conviction
A division bench comprising Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta set aside the 2015 trial court conviction of Surajmal. The trial court had found him guilty under sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
The High Court bench explicitly stated, "In our considered opinion, in the given facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Prosecution has been unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt." This declaration formed the core of their judgment.
Background of the 2014 Murder Case
The case dates back to December 2, 2014, when Naveen was discovered shot dead in his room in Mayna village, Rohtak. Initially, his brother Paramjeet reported the murder by unknown persons, citing an old grudge as possible motive.
Later that same day, the victim's mother, Saroj Bala, expressed suspicion against Surajmal. She alleged a property dispute involving two shops and a house in Ekta Colony, Rohtak, as the potential motive behind the killing.
Prosecution's Case and Court's Findings
The prosecution built their case on several key elements. They relied on Saroj Bala's claim that she witnessed the accused leaving the house around midnight. They also presented a disclosure statement that supposedly led to the recovery of a country-made pistol and an empty cartridge. Additionally, they pointed to an alleged motive linked to rent collection from the disputed properties.
However, the High Court bench found multiple weaknesses in the prosecution's arguments. They noted there was no material on record to substantiate the alleged property dispute. The bench observed significant improvements in Saroj Bala's testimony before the court compared to her initial police statement. They also described her explanation for the delay in naming the accused as unsupported by evidence.
Doubts About Evidence Recovery
The bench expressed serious doubts about the recovery of the weapon. They observed that "recovery of said weapon and cartridge itself is suspect in the given facts and circumstances." This suspicion grew stronger because the recovery location was accessible to everyone, raising questions about the evidence's reliability.
Furthermore, the bench noted that the deceased was involved in six to seven criminal cases. This factor assumed significance when considered alongside other circumstances in the case.
Application of Legal Principles
The bench applied principles established by the Supreme Court regarding cases based on circumstantial evidence. They concluded that the circumstances presented by the prosecution did not form a complete chain pointing exclusively to the accused's guilt.
According to established legal standards, circumstantial evidence must be so conclusive that it leaves no room for any reasonable hypothesis except the accused's guilt. The court found this standard unmet in Surajmal's case.
Final Order and Release
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside both the conviction and sentence. They ordered Surajmal's immediate release, provided he is not required in any other case. This decision brings closure to a legal battle that has lasted nearly a decade since the original incident in 2014.
The judgment underscores the importance of the "benefit of doubt" principle in Indian criminal jurisprudence. It reaffirms that conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying solely on circumstantial evidence.
