skip to content
Advertisement

20 years after they were jailed, HC acquits 6 convicts in 2002 Haryana murder case

Citing contradictions in statements, unexplained injuries on the body of the deceased, and the delay in lodging the FIR, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the conviction of the six individuals.

Punjab Haryana High CourtNoting that “the prosecution has projected a distorted version of events”, the division bench of Justices Manjari Nehru Kaul and H S Grewal overturned the July 19, 2004, verdict of a sessions court in Narnaul.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday acquitted six convicts in a 2002 murder case, calling the prosecution’s case “not trustworthy” and riddled with contradictions.

Noting that “the prosecution has projected a distorted version of events”, the division bench of Justices Manjari Nehru Kaul and H S Grewal overturned the July 19, 2004, verdict of a sessions court in Narnaul. The lower court had sentenced Madan Lal, Jagmal Singh, Lal Chand, Sunil Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar, and Munni Devi to life imprisonment under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 34 (common intention), for the murder of Shadi Ram in Birawas village.

Assault and death

According to the prosecution, on the morning of September 11, 2002, complainant Surrender Singh, son of the deceased Shadi Ram, saw his father being attacked near Madan Lal’s house while on his way to the fields.

Story continues below this ad

The First Information Report (FIR) alleged that Sunil Kumar hit Ram on the head with the back side of a kulhari (axe) while Lal Chand struck him with an iron rod. Ram succumbed to head injuries a day later at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS) in Rohtak.

Accepting the prosecution’s version, the trial court convicted all six. However, in their appeal, the accused argued that the case was fabricated and pointed to glaring lapses in the investigation and inconsistencies in statements.

Court raps prosecution

The High Court agreed. Citing medical reports, it noted that the accused had sustained multiple injuries, two of them grievous, which the prosecution had not explained. “The prosecution has not explained these injuries at all, which clearly shows that the genesis of the occurrence has been concealed…,” the bench observed.

The court also flagged the delay in lodging the FIR. While the incident allegedly occurred at 7.30 am, the complainant’s statement was recorded only at 3.10 pm. “The unexplained delay of nearly eight hours gives sufficient time for deliberation, consultation and embellishment,” the judgment said.

Story continues below this ad

Adding to the doubts, the accused had themselves gone to the police first. “The accused had lodged a daily diary entry at 10 am on the same day, which shows that they were the first to approach the police,” the ruling noted.

The bench also highlighted material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The complainant first said that the attack occurred in front of Madan Lal’s house, but later shifted the location to near the Panchayat Ghar. Crucially, Virender Singh, another son of the deceased who witnessed the attack and took his father to the hospital, was never examined. “His non-examination suggests the true genesis of the occurrence was suppressed,” the court said.

In its concluding remarks, the court declared, “The prosecution story is not trustworthy. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.07.2004 is hereby set aside.”

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement

You May Like

Advertisement