WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1822/2011

VINOD @ MANOJ APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

The judgment dated 25.08.2009 passed by the High

Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal

No. 962-DB of 2006 confirming the judgment and order of

conviction dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Narnaul in Sessions

Case No. 6 of 2005 is called in question by the convicted

accused. By the impugned judgment, the accused is

convicted under Sections 364,376,302 and 201 IPC and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years,

Signature Not Verified

10
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
years, imprisonment for life and two years
Date: 2019.11.04
16:53:02 IST
Reason:

respectively for the aforementioned offences.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

deceased Sushma @ Babli aged about 14½ years was living

along with her mother and younger sister in the house of

her uncle Rajesh Kumar in village Dewas as her father

Krishan Kumar had expired; the appellant and other boys

used to tease the deceased while going to school and used

to go behind her. On 11.06.2005, that is, the date of the

incident, the accused and other boys were roaming around

the house of the deceased in the evening. At about 10.30

p.m. PW-7, the grand-mother of the deceased who was

sleeping in the house woke up and found that Sushma was

not present in the house. All the family members started

searching for the deceased. On 13.06.2005, Rajesh Kumar

the uncle of the deceased met Chhaju Ram, Ex-Sarpanch of

the village and informed him about the incident and told

him that he wants to lodge a complaint with the police.

At that point of time, the said Chhaju Ram advised him

not to report the matter to the police and that the

deceased can be searched privately. Ultimately, the FIR

came to be lodged on 23.06.2005. Based on the extra

judicial confession of the accused, the accused came to

be arrested on 22.07.2005.

As mentioned supra, the Trial Court as well as the

High Court convicted the accused for the aforementioned

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
3

offences.

Heard Mr. Wasim Ashrif, learned Counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Arun Kumar, AAG for the

respondent/State.

There is no eye witness to the incident. The case is

based on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances

born out from the record are as under:

1.) Extra judicial confession said to have been made

by the accused to PW-1/1 & PW-4.

2) The accused along with other boys was roaming

around the house of the deceased in the evening on

the date of incident. This circumstance deposed by

PW-7.

3. The recovery of ‘Gudri’ (Mattress) from the house

of the accused wherein semen stains were found.

So far as the first circumstance extra judicial

confession is concerned, PW-4 has turned hostile.

According to PW-1/1 (Suresh) he met the accused on

21.07.2005 at about 10.00 a.m. and at that time the

accused confessed that he had committed a mistake of

raping Sushma and throwing the dead body in the well. PW-

1 took the accused to the police station and produced him

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

before the Police Officer. In our considered opinion, we

do not find any ground to disbelieve the version of PW-

1/1 with regard to extra judicial confession.

So far as the second circumstance roaming around the

house of the deceased is concerned, this cannot be a

ground to connect the accused with the crime. Not only

the accused but also the other boys of the same age were

roaming around the house of the deceased. None of the

other boys were suspected. Merely, because the accused

was 18 years of age as on the date of the incident,

roaming around the house of deceased would not lead to

the conclusion that the accused has committed the crime

of rape and murder. Unless the prosecution is able to

connect the accused with the crime with appropriate

material, the court cannot come to the aid of the

prosecution merely on the basis of the surmises and

conjectures.

So far as recovery of ‘Gudri’(Mattress) is concerned,

there is nothing on record to show that the incident of

rape has occurred on 11.06.2005. On the same night

itself, the villagers started searching the deceased. If

really the rape has taken place in the evening of

11.06.2005 that too in the house of the accused, the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

villagers could not have missed to find out the deceased

from his house in the village itself. The search has

taken place more than 03 days. Despite the search, the

deceased was not found. Moreover, ‘Gudri’ (Mattress)

seized from the house of the accused was having semen

stains but it did not have the vaginal smear. The

recovery of ‘Gudri’ (Mattress) may raise some sort of

suspicion in the mind of the court but having regard to

other material on record more so when the deceased was

not found in the village for more than 03 days itself

goes to show that the incident must have not occurred in

the house of the accused. The Doctor(PW-20) who conducted

the post mortem has categorically deposed that no opinion

could be given regarding rape on the victim in view of

the passage of 4 days from the date of death till the

date of post mortem report.

Except the aforementioned circumstances, no other

circumstance is alleged. In our considered opinion,

merely because extra judicial confession is proved which

is a weak type of circumstance, the accused cannot be

convicted for the offence of rape and murder. The

prosecution has failed to prove other circumstances

relied upon by it beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
6

judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court are

liable to be set aside. It is unfortunate that the

appellant has remained in jail for more than 13 years.

Having regard to the totality of facts and

circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has not

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,

the benefit should go in favour of the accused. Hence,

the appellant is acquitted for the charges leveled

against him. Since he is on bail, the bail bonds stand

discharged. He shall not be arrested in connection of

this case any more.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

........................J.
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

......................J.
[AJAY RASTOGI]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 23, 2019.
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1822/2011

VINOD @ MANOJ Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)

Date : 23-10-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

For Appellant(s)
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR

For Respondent(s)
Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable

judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of

accordingly.

(ASHWANI KUMAR) (R.S. NARAYANAN)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)