Holding

The conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC cannot be sustained as the circumstantial evidence fails to meet the requisite standards, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

Summary

The appellant Pradeep Kumar was convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Shamsher Singh, based solely on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra‑judicial confession. The prosecution relied on the testimonies of three key witnesses (PW‑10, PW‑11, PW‑12) and forensic reports that linked blood stains to the accused, despite no sharp‑edged weapon being recovered. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of these witnesses, finding contradictions, improbabilities, and lack of corroboration, and noted the absence of any weapon consistent with the incised wound shown in the post‑mortem. Applying the established five‑principle test for circumstantial evidence, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

Issues considered

Whether a conviction under Sections 302 and 34 IPC can be sustained when the case is based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented satisfies the five essential principles required for a conviction.
Whether the testimonies of PW‑10, PW‑11 and PW‑12 are reliable and sufficient to establish guilt.
Whether the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

Circumstantial evidenceMurderReasonable doubtAcquittalSection 302 IPCSection 34 IPC

Judgment

[2024] 1 S.C.R. 306 : 2024 INSC 21

Pradeep Kumar
v.
State of Haryana
(Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2010)
05 January 2024
[B. R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha*, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
In a case based only on circumstantial evidence, conviction of the
appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, Penal Code, 1860 for murder and
sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life, if justified.

Headnotes
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Case of the prosecution
based only on circumstantial evidence – Conviction of the
appellant u/s.302 read with s.34, IPC – Propriety:
Held: Versions of the three witnesses (PW-10, PW-11 and 12) are
improbable and contradictory – The weapons recovered by the IO
and the ones seen by the witnesses are only sticks – However,
the deceased had suffered an incise wound which according to
the doctor, PW-14 who conducted the post-mortem, was caused
by a sharp-edged weapon – Prosecution did not recover any
sharp-edged weapon – In fact, there is no mention about a
sharp-edged weapon at all – FSL report states that the “pant”
sent to them for examination was one dirty blue “terikot pant” –
However, as per the recovery memo a “jeans pant” was recovered
from the Appellant – Additionally, the FSL report states that the
blood on the sticks, blood-stained pants and the blood group of
the deceased is the same “O+” – This is not an indication of the
guilt – Moreover, nothing of these recoveries took place in the
presence of an independent witness – Thus, there is a yawning
gap between the charge against the Appellant and the evidence
adduced – The circumstances do not establish the guilt of the
Appellant at all – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, in the present case the evidence adduced gives rise to
doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies – Prosecution did not
* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 307

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

establish its case beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of the
High Court and the Trial Court set aside – Appellant acquitted.
[Paras 25, 26, 29-32]

Case Law Cited
Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. The State of Punjab [2023]
10 S.C.R. 1033: (2023) 7 SCC 727; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88:(1984)
4 SCC 116 – relied on.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Circumstantial evidence; Murder; Case not established beyond
reasonable doubt; Acquittal.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1338
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2009 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No.805-DB of 2007.
Appearances for Parties
Pranab Kumar Mullick, Mrs. Soma Mullick, Anil Rana, Ms. Banani
Sikdar, Sebat Kumar Deuria, Sagar Kundu, Rohit Rana, Ajay Solanki,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Ajay Bansal, A.A.G., Gaurav Yadava, Samar Vijay Singh, Keshav
Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Ms. Veena Bansal, Saurav Jindal, Sanjay
Yadav, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
1. The sole appellant herein was tried along with another accused for
the murder of one Samsher Singh and convicted under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder
308 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court1.
In appeal, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana2 by the judgment
impugned herein dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction
and sentence. Thus, the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that while the Assistant Sub-Inspector
Balbir Singh, later examined as PW-21 was with other police
officials on duty at Deyod Kheri Village, Jind-bypass road, Kaithal,
on 11.04.2004, the complainant-Sunil Kumar Bhura (later examined
as PW-20) met him and got his statement (EX.PY) recorded. The
statement had that he is a resident of Nehru Garden Colony, Kaithal
and the deceased-Shamsher Singh is related to him, being son
of his paternal aunt. PW-20 was in business of real estate and
was living in Adarsh Nagar, Kaithal. The previous day, that is on
10.04.2004, when PW-20 was in the office of the deceased along
with one Balwant Singh (PW-18), the deceased received a call on
his mobile phone at about 9.15 PM. A little thereafter, that is about
9.30 PM, the deceased received another phone call. After conversing
on the mobile phone, the deceased informed them that he has to
go to Gole Market and left on his motorcycle. The complainant and
Balwant Singh also left the shop of the deceased. In the morning,
the deceased’s wife informed PW-20 that the deceased had not
returned the previous night. On receiving the said information, PW-
20 and PW-18 reached the house of the deceased and thereafter
went on a search for the deceased.
3. When PW-20 got the information that a dead body was found lying,
he along with PW-18 and one Mr. Naresh (PW-13) reached the spot
and saw that the deceased lying there, with his throat having knotted
with some cloth, and the right eye being badly injured. They also
noticed some injuries on the head of the deceased. The motorcycle
of the deceased was parked by the side. While Naresh and PW-18
remained at the spot, PW-20 had come to inform the police about
the incident and his statement was thus recorded and read over to
him by the investigating officer (PW-21) with his endorsement at
Ex. PW-21/1. After the FIR was registered, PW-24 took over the
investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses.

1 The Additional Sessions Judge Kaithal in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2004 dated 31.08.2007.
2 In Criminal Appeal No. 805-DB 2007 dated 05.09.2009.
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 309

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

4. During the investigation, the police recorded the statement of Rajesh,
later examined as PW-11 and Jogi Ram later examined as PW-
12. The statement and deposition of these two persons assumed
importance as their evidence was relied on by the Trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court.
5. The statement of Rajesh (PW-11) was that on 10.04.2004 while he
was driving from Chandigarh to Hisar, about half a kilometre before
Karnal bypass his vehicle got punctured. As he was changing the
wheel, he saw four young people on motorcycle coming from eastern
side and they had to slow down because of the Karnal bypass. At
that time, he saw the accused were carrying dandas and one of the
boy’s clothes were stained with blood. Being suspicious he noted
the registration number of the motorcycle being HR 08 E 4962. This
witness also says that he read about the murder of the deceased
in the newspaper two days later, i.e. on 12.04.2004 and while he
was returning back to Chandigarh on 13.04.2004, he saw a police
vehicle standing at the Karnal bypass Chowk with some police
officials and the accused. He stopped his vehicle and informed the
police about the occurrence on 10.04.2004. The prosecution thus
relied on this person in support of the case as a witness to have
last seen the deceased with the accused.
6. Similarly, PW-12 made a statement to the police. His version is that
he is a resident of Sector 19/1 Huda, Kaithal and on 10.04.2004,
he was taking an evening walk on Kaithal Road T-Point near Huda
Road/Street. About 9.45-10 pm, while urinating by the roadside,
he saw a motorcycle ridden by 3 young boys of about 20-21 years
of age holding dandas in their hands. He recognised the appellant
and when he started coughing, that is while urinating, the 3 boys
drove away towards Karnal Road. His statement was recorded by
the police on 12.04.2004.
7. The police also recorded the statement of one Dilbag Singh, later
examined as PW-16 who recorded his version of having seen the
deceased in the company of the accused at the same spot.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.04.2004, the Appellant
(A-1), Sumit Gupta (A-2), Anil & Jaswinder surrendered before
the investigating officer through Ex-Sarpanch of village Geong,
Balbir Singh (PW-10) to whom the accused made an extra-judicial
confession. Pursuant to the surrender, the prosecution says that
310 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

disclosure statements of A-1, A-2, Anil & Jaswinder were recorded,
and certain recoveries were also made.
9. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. It may be
mentioned at this stage that prosecution of Anil and Jaswinder was
separated from this case after they were declared to be juveniles.
Thus, only the Appellant and Sumit Gupta (A-2) stood trial. Before
the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 24 witnesses and marked
certain exhibits. The defence on the other hand examined 3 witnesses
as DW 1, 2 and 3.
10. The Trial Court having noticed that there are no eyewitnesses
and that the case of the prosecution is based only on
circumstantial evidence, copiously referred to the statements
of each witness, but rested its decision only on the evidence of
PW-10, 11 & 12 and certain recoveries and the FSL Report. The
reasoning, which is in two paragraphs is extracted herein below for
ready reference:
“In the present case, the chain of circumstances is
interwoven which has been corroborative through the
testimony of PW-11 Rajesh and PW-12 Jogi Ram who
have last seen accused Sumit Gupta and accused Pradeep
Kumar with Shamsher Singh deceased. Extra Judicial
confession has been made before Ex. Sarpanch Balbir
Singh. Motive is also proved through cheques which have
been issued by accused Sumit Gupta in the name of
Shamsher Singh (deceased) from which accused Sumit
Gupta has taken a loan of Rs. 29,000/- and failed to return
back that money in time. There is recovery of Mobile Phone
of accused Sumit Gupta and Shamsher Singh vide recovery
memo Ex. PV. In FSL report Ex. PRR/1 blood group of
deceased Shamsher Singh is cited to be ‘O’ group. In the
‘danda’ recovered from accused vide recovery memo Ex.
PQQ, blood group ‘O’ tallies. Similarly, on the pant worn
by the accused Pardeep Kumar recovered later, blood ‘O’
group has been found on the stains of pant vide recovery
memo Ex. PJ. Hence, the prosecution case is also proved
through scientific investigation also. Hence, these are
chain of evidence so far complete, so as not to leave any
reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the guilt
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 311

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

of the accused. The guilt of accused Sumit Gupta and
accused Pardeep Kumar is proved to the fact that in all
human probability act of murder has been committed by
accused Sumit Gupta and Pardeep Kumar.
Hence, it is proved to the hilt that on 10.04.2004, at about
10 PM in the area of Dhand Road Deokheri turning accused
Sumit Gupta and Pardeep Kumar in furtherance of their
common intention caused death of deceased Shamsher
Singh intentionally and committed offence punishable
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.”
11. In appeal by the Appellant herein and accused No.2, Sumit
Gupta, the High Court also relied on the evidence of PW-11
and 12. In fact, the High Court seemed to have accepted the
submission of the defence that the evidence of Ex. Sarpanch,
PW-10 is unreliable. However, without discussing the evidence of
PW-10, the High Court observed that the evidence of PW-11 and
PW-12 are sufficient to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed
by the Trial Court.
12. We heard Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, learned counsel for the appellant
who took us through his meticulously prepared written submissions
and statements of relevant witness and the reasoning of the High
Court.
13. As the case of the prosecution, as accepted by the Trial Court and
High Court, is based on circumstantial evidence said to have been
established by PW-10, 11 and 12, we will examine them in detail.
14. PW-10 is an Ex. Sarpanch of the village Geong. His testimony is
that on 17.04.2004, while he was in his house, the Appellant (A-1),
Sumit (A-2), Anil and Jaswinder came to him and confessed about
committing the murder of the deceased. He stated that Sumit Gupta
(A-2) disclosed to him that he borrowed money from the deceased and
as such there was pressure on him to return the money. When the
deceased demanded the money on 10.04.2004, he was apprehensive
of being insulted and therefore planned to kill the deceased with the
help of other accused. For this purpose, he called the deceased to
the T-Point at Kaithal, Dhand Road at 9.30 PM saying that he has
arranged the repayment. By the time the deceased came there,
other accused were already present at the spot, they all assaulted
312 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the deceased with dandas, killed him and threw the dead body in
the field near Shergha Road. This witness also stated that all other
accused disclosed similar version. Himself being an Ex. Sarpanch,
he has thereafter produced the accused before the SHO Police
Station Kaithal.
15. Having considered the submissions of the appellant about
contradictions in the statement of this witness (PW-10), the High
Court concluded, “even if we ignored the evidence of PW-10 before
whom the appellants have made an extra judicial confession having
committed the crime, there is more emphatic evidence led by the
prosecution compelling this Court to believe that the appellants had
committed the crime of murdering Shamsher Singh.” In other words,
the High Court has not relied on the evidence of PW-10 as it found
other sufficient evidence.
16. We have however independently examined the evidence of PW-10
and come to the conclusion that this witness is not trustworthy and
this is evident from the following:
a. This witness denied having met the deceased earlier “I have
never met Shamsher Singh earlier”. However, the complainant
(PW-20) in his statement on 11.04.2004 says “today we came to
know that Malkhan, Prem Singh, Balbir Sarpanch met Shamsher
on Dhand Road, Kaithal at about 10 PM.” The said statement
is also recorded in the FIR and charge sheet, though he leaves
doubt about this version in his deposition.
b. Similarly, Balwant Singh (PW-18) in his deposition on 08.12.2006
states that, “since Shamsher Singh did not reach back to home
and hence his family members started searching for him.
Malkhan, Prem Singh and Balbir Singh r/o Geong informed that
Shamsher Singh was seen at Dhand Road, Kaithal”.
c. Further, Balbir Singh, ASI (PW-21) also deposed about the
deceased having met the Sarpanch. He says “it is correct to
state that Balbir Sarpanch, Malkhan and Prem Singh residents
of Geong had met Shamsher Singh deceased on 10.04.2004
at 10 PM at Dhand Road, Kaithal, according to statements of
PWs gathered at the spot that is Sunil and Balwant PWs.”
17. Apart from the above referred contradiction, yet another fact about the
extra-judicial confession on 17.04.2004 is noteworthy. The statement of
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 313

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

the accused Sumit Gupta (A-2) in his Section 313 CrPC statement is
that they were arrested on 11.04.2004 itself and not 17.04.2004. This
statement gets corroborated by the deposition of Rajesh (PW-11), who
stated that; “Thereafter I read news in newspaper regarding murder on
12.04.2004. On 12.04.2004 I read in the newspaper regarding murder
at Kaithal in the surrounding area in which I was changing the stepney.
On 13.04.2004 in the morning, I was going to Chandigarh through
Kaithal and I saw a police vehicle standing on Karnal by pass Chowk in
the area of Kaithal. I saw police inspector along with 4/5 police officials
and saw the same accused along with police. Then I stopped and told
the police regarding occurrence on 10.04.2004. Police recorded my
statement on the spot.” If the statement of PW-11 is to be accepted,
which the prosecution wants us to believe, then the arrest had already
taken place by 13.04.2004 and therefore the accused were seen in
the presence of the police on that day. If this is true, then there is no
doubt in our mind that the extra judicial confession on 17.04.2004 is
false and unbelievable. The evidence of this witness that is PW-11 is
strongly relied on by the prosecution. In fact, the Trial Court as well as
the High Court proceeded on the basis of this witness’s statement to
convict and sentence the Appellant. This is perhaps the reason why
the High Court did not consider it appropriate to rely on the evidence
of PW-10 and proceeded to confirm conviction and sentence on the
basis of other evidence. There are some other aspects which Mr.
Mullick has relied on to cast a doubt about evidence of PW-10 but
we are of the opinion that the above referred factors are sufficient to
reject the version of PW-10.
18. PW-11 – His evidence is relied on by the Trial Court as well as the
High Court. He is admittedly a chance witness. In fact, he chances
the episode twice over, first on 10.04.2004 at about 10.30 PM when
he was going from Chandigarh to Hisar. His version is that at about
1.5 kilometres near Karnal bypass, his car tyre got punctured and
when he was putting the stepney, he saw four people on motorcycle
armed with dandas. He noticed blood stain on the deceased’s pant
and also records the registration number of the motorcycle. Secondly,
he again chances the police party standing with the accused on
his way back to Chandigarh. He stops and gets the incidence of
10.04.2004 recorded by the Police.
19. This witness is completely unreliable. It is his own statement that
he started from Chandigarh at 6 PM on 10.04.2004. The distance
314 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

between Chandigarh and the place of occurrence is about 120
kilometres and takes about 2 hours to cover the distance even by
car. There is no explanation as to how he took more than four hours
to reach the scene of offence. This uncertainty is compounded when
he admits his ignorance about the person in whose name the car is
registered. Further, upon being questioned about where he stayed
in Chandigarh the night of 09.04.2004, his answer is simply that
he does not remember the name of the lodge. He could not even
remember the shops near by the lodge. It is rather surprising that this
witness while engrossed in changing the wheel of his car at 10.30
PM manages to note the blood stains on the pant and also recorded
the registration number of the motorcycle. There is nothing to indicate
that he had a pen or a paper to readily note the registration number.
His statement is to be contrasted with the version of Ram Kumar IO
(PW-24) who stated that “I did not see any arrangement of the light
on the Karnal bypass road especially the alleged place where the
car of Rajesh Kumar got punctured and he saw the accused while
riding the motorcycle. It is correct that there is no light arrangement
on the place of occurrence because it is an agriculture area.” We
are not at all impressed with the evidence of PW-11. There are too
many coincidences in his version and his story is improbable in the
context of the facts and circumstances of the case. He is certainly
an unreliable witness.
20. PW-12 – He is again a chance witness, relied on by the prosecution
to prove the last seen theory. This witness is said to have gone out
for an evening walk on Kaithal Road between 9.45 to 10 PM. While
urinating by the roadside, he sees a motorcycle with three accused
on it. He states that the accused moved away towards Karnal
bypass, the moment he started coughing while urinating. He reports
this incident two days later, that is on 12.04.2004 by going to Sadar
Police Station, Kaithal. We will analyse his statement.
21. As per the statement of PW-12, he went on an evening walk between
9.45 to 10 PM, two Kilometres away from his house, particularly in an
area which does not have streetlights. The multi-tasking of urinating,
coughing, seeing the motorcycle, noting the blood stains clothes and
recording the registration number happens simultaneously. There is no
evidence as to the manner in which he had recorded the registration
number. He is said to have studied only up to 6th class. How could
he notice and also memorise the registration number having seen
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 315

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

it from a long distance. He himself says the motorcycle was at a
distance. His version is highly improbable.
22. This witness says that the blood stained trouser and dandas in the
hands of the accused caused suspicion and therefore, he recorded
the number. However, that did not compel him to go to the police
station. Instead, he reports the incident only on the 12.04.2004, that
is two days later. Strangely, instead of reporting the incident to the
police chowki which is next to his residence, he goes all the way to
Sadar Police Station, Kaithal. We are of the opinion that the evidence
of PW-12 does not inspire confidence at all.
23. PW-16 – This is yet another witness relied on by the prosecution,
however, the Trial and the High Court have not laid much emphasis.
We will nevertheless examine the evidence of this witness. He is a
witness who was on his way to Haridwar along with his Fufa (father’s
sister’s husband). He is supposed to have seen the deceased
sitting on a motorcycle along with A-2 at T-Point at Karnal bypass.
After speaking to him for 2 to 3 minutes, he proceeded further. This
witness reports this incident to the Police on 14.04.2004 when he
comes back from Haridwar. His statement is similarly relied on by
the prosecution in support of the last seen theory.
24. This witness is a relative of the deceased. The Fufa who was travelling
with him is not examined. He does not even know the driver of the
vehicle in which he travelled or its registration number, even though
he went all the way to Haridwar and stayed there for two to three
days. This witness describes the incidence of meeting the deceased
and A-2 at a place where even PW-12 is supposed to have seen
the deceased. Neither this witness spoke of PW-12, nor did PW-12
speak about this witness. Nothing much flows from the evidence of
this witness, apart from his own version which is highly improbable
and therefore unreliable.
25. Apart from the improbable and contradictory versions of the three
witnesses, Mr. Mullick has also brought to our notice that the weapons
recovered by the IO and the ones seen by the witnesses are only
sticks. However, the deceased has suffered an incise wound which
according to the doctor, PW-14 who conducted the post-mortem,
is caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The prosecution has not
recovered any sharp-edged weapon. In fact, there is no mention
about a sharp-edged weapon at all.
316 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

26. The FSL report states that the “pant” sent to them for examination
was one dirty blue “terikot pant”. However, as per the recovery memo
a “jeans pant” was recovered from the Appellant. Additionally, the FSL
report states that the blood on the sticks, blood-stained pants and the
blood group of the deceased is the same “O+”. Mr. Mullick has rightly
contended that this is not an indication of the guilt. Moreover, nothing
of these recoveries took place in the presence of an independent
witness. In fact, the IO (PW-24) has admitted that he did not try to
join any private person before carrying out the recoveries.
27. Mr. Mullick has also made detailed submission with respect to
place and time of the recovery of the body of the deceased and the
alleged motive behind the crime. We are of the opinion that it is not
necessary to examine those aspects in detail. Admittedly, there are
no eyewitnesses, and the entire case of the prosecution depends
upon circumstantial evidence.
28. In a recent decision, Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC
727, one of us (Justice Gavai) has taken note of the judgment in
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra3, (1984) 4 SCC
116 and observed:
17. It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established. It has been held
that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and

3 “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before
a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and
not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be
proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793: 1973 SCC
(Cri) 1033] where the following observations were made: (SCC p. 807, para 19)
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a
court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the con-
clusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence.”
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 317

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

not “may be” established. It has been held that there is
not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between
“may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. It
has been held that the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable
on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
It has been held that the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude
every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be
proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so
complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused
and must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
18. It is a settled principle of law that however strong a
suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond
reasonable doubt. In the light of these guiding principles,
we will have to consider the present case.”
In the background, we have analysed the evidence and the testimonies
of the witnesses.
29. There is a yawning gap between the charge against the Appellant and
the evidence that the prosecution has adduced. The circumstances
do not establish the guilt of the Appellant at all. While the principle
applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be
consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, in the present
case the evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and
inconsistencies.
30. Having considered the matter in detail and having noted the various
discrepancies and improbabilities, we are of the firm view that the
prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Appellant is entitled to be acquitted.
31. We, therefore, allow Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2010 and set aside
the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
in Pradeep Kumar & Anr. v. State of Haryana in Crl. Appeal No.
805-DB of 2007 dated 05.09.2009 and the judgment of the Court of
318 [2024] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2004
dated 31.08.2007 convicting and sentencing the appellant under
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
32. The Appellant is acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds, if any,
stand discharged.
33. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms
of the above order.
34. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey Result of the case: Appeal allowed.