KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

KRISHAN KUMAR AND ANR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

The Supreme Court held that the courts below had misappreciated evidence: 'last seen' was not established by any witness and could not be presumed from other circumstances; PW-10 and PW-8's evidence contained omissions and contradictions; the extra-judicial confession to PW-7 was not reliable; recovery of the chunni from an open accessible place without independent witnesses was inconsequential; motive was not proved and the prosecution withheld best evidence (Poonam). Consequently the cumulative circumstantial evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and convictions under Sections 201, 300 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC could not be sustained and were set...

Parties
Appellant/accused: Krishan Kumar; Appellant/accused: Joginder Singh; Respondent: The State of Haryana
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1076 1077 of 2015 / Decision on Appeal by the Supreme Court (judgment Dated 08.08.2023)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30.07.2014 set aside; appellants acquitted and granted benefit of doubt.
Legal Topics
Circumstantial Evidence, Last Seen Theory, Motive, Extra Judicial Confession, Recovery of Weapon, Section 364 IPC, Section 302 IPC, Section 201 IPC, Section 34 IPC, Section 60 Evidence Act
Criminal Law Evidence Law Circumstantial Evidence Last Seen Theory Motive Extra Judicial Confession Recovery of Weapon Section 364 IPC +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishan Kumar

Appellant/accused

Joginder Singh

Appellant/accused

The State of Haryana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1076 1077 of 2015 / Decision on Appeal by the Supreme Court (judgment Dated 08.08.2023)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conviction based on circumstantial evidence (last seen, extra-judicial confession, recovery of weapon and motive) was justified
  2. 2 Applicability and sufficiency of 'last seen' theory in absence of direct ocular evidence
  3. 3 Admissibility and reliability of extra-judicial confession

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the courts below had misappreciated evidence: 'last seen' was not established by any witness and could not be presumed from other circumstances; PW-10 and PW-8's evidence contained omissions and contradictions; the extra-judicial confession to PW-7 was not reliable; recovery of the chunni from an open accessible place without independent witnesses was inconsequential; motive was not proved and the prosecution withheld best evidence (Poonam). Consequently the cumulative circumstantial evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and convictions under Sections 201, 300 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC could not be sustained and were set...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30.07.2014 set aside; appellants acquitted and granted benefit of doubt.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court in C.R.A. No. D-671-DB of 2002 and C.R.A. No. D-685-DB of 2002 set aside
  • Convictions under Sections 201, 300 and 302 IPC read with Section 34 set aside