Read Full Judgment: Dharambir vs. State of Haryana
In the case of Dharambir @ Dharma vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1858 of 2009, the Supreme Court examined the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, which was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The incident dated back to June 5, 1998, where the appellant allegedly stabbed the deceased, Karambir, at Prabhat Cinema in Bhiwani. The prosecution’s case primarily relied on the testimony of Krishan Kumar (PW-5), the brother of the deceased, and Ram Kumar (PW-8), who claimed an extra-judicial confession by the accused.
However, upon careful examination, the Supreme Court found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence. Krishan Kumar’s testimony, the key witness, was deemed unreliable due to various discrepancies in his statements regarding the sequence of events, the seating arrangements, and his actions immediately following the incident. Moreover, the court observed that the presence of the appellant at the cinema at the exact time of the incident seemed improbable given the lack of premeditation and opportunity.
Additionally, the court noted that Ram Kumar’s testimony regarding the extra-judicial confession was contradicted by Piare Lal (DW-1), who denied the confession took place. This weakened the prosecution’s case further, as an extra-judicial confession, being inherently weak evidence, required corroboration, which was lacking in this instance.
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the unreliable nature of the key witnesses’ testimonies and the lack of corroborating evidence, the court acquitted the appellant of the charges, overturning the convictions by both the trial court and the high court.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the critical importance of reliable and corroborative evidence in criminal proceedings. The judgment underscores the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and reaffirms the burden of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, failing which, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused.
