Findings of the case

The court, while hearing a case of an alleged murder, has touched upon certain key principles and aspects of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, including:

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

1. The evidence of last seen must be in proximity with time of death of the deceased failing which burden lies on the prosecution to prove that no one but the accused had access to the deceased during this time gap.
2. In a case where any disclosure made by the accused in custody of the police which in turn led the police to a discovery, such discovery must be distinct. That is, such discovery must not be within the existing knowledge of the police. (S.27)
3. Burden of proof lies completely on the prosecution and such proof must be given without reasonable doubt.    

Facts of the case

Gurmail Singh, the deceased was returning from the house of sister and brother in law on 8th may 2000 but apparently never returned to his village. The complaint by his brother was filed on 11.05.2000 which narrates that Karanjit Singh (neighbour of the deceased and his brother) had seen Gurmail Singh on his tractor around 7 pm with Mange Ram and Dinesh (appellant in this case). The case was registered by the police station under S.364 of IPC (kidnapping or abducting for murder). The body of the deceased was recovered the next day from a canal following which it was sent for post-mortem. The ultimate cause of death was held asphyxia due to strangulation.

Meanwhile, Mange Ram was arrested and on 13th May information was given by him as to the place where he and Dinesh Kumar killed the deceased. From this place, two slippers (belonging to Mange Ram and Dinesh Kumar) were retrieved.  Further Mange ram took the police to the canal where the body was dropped. Following day, Mange ram led the police as to place where they abandoned the tractor belonging to the deceased but the tractor by then had been taken into Custody by the Rampur police station, Uttar Pradesh. The present appellant (Dinesh Kumar) was arrested on 14.05.2000.

The Appellant and the co-accused Mange Ram was convicted in sessions court following which separate appeals were filed in High court of Punjab and Haryana and during the pendency of the appeal, Mage Ram passed away. The sentence of the trial court was upheld by the High court and thus sentencing Dinesh Kumar (appellant in the present case) to life imprisonment.  The decision of High Court has now bee appealed under s SLP.

Proceedings in the court

The prosecution in the current case relied entirely upon circumstantial evidences. These evidences are two- 

1)The evidence of last seen - Karanjit Singh saw Dinesh and Mange Ram at about 7 pm along with the deceased. 

2)The disclosure given in the police custody by Mange Ram and the discovery on its basis. 

The evidence of last seen given by Karanjit Singh states that he spotted the accused and deceased together at 7:30 pm on 08.05.2000. But the post mortem repot holds that the death took place approximately at 4pm on 10.05.2000. The court held hat the evidence of last seen becomes extremely important piece of evidence when there is close proximity between the time of the evidence and the death of the deceased. However, this does not mean that such evidence does not hold any weight but then a heavy burden is placed on the prosecution to prove that during the said time gap no other person but the accused has had access to the deceased as otherwise, the possibility of some other interventions cannot be ruled out. However, no such effort was taken in this case. 

The court held that even in case of circumstantial evidences, motive is still significant. In this case, the prosecution alleges that the deceased was kidnapped, robbed and murdered for the tractor. But this tractor is evidently been abandoned. Thus, the motive is not established. 

Secondly, the discovery based on the information received from accused must be distinct (Section 27 of Evidence Act). 

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act states that- 

“How much of information received from accused may be proved -- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

This means that an information given by an accused in custody based on which discovery is made shall be said to be proved provided such information leads to a distinct discovery that is a discovery which is not already made by the police.

The information given by Mange Ram including the place where body was dropped, the tractor was already within the knowledge of the police. The court holds that “there cannot be a “discovery” of   an   already   discovered   fact! “Thus, the discoveries which were made by Mange Ramm could not be read against the present appellant. Thus, the appeal was allowed. 

Section 101 of the Indian evidence act states- 

Burden   of   proof  –   Whoever   desires   any Court   to   give   judgment   as   to   any   legal   right   or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

In simple words, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Further such a fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And above-mentioned evidences lie on weak footing and could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Thus, this appeal was allowed. 

For detail judgment click the link Dinesh Kumar v State of Haryana