After 21 Years, Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Conviction In Culpable Homicide Case; Says Prosecution Suppressed Facts
Setting aside a 2005 conviction in a culpable homicide case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the failure of the prosecution to explain grievous and sharp-edged injuries sustained by four of the accused in the same occurrence was not a mere omission but a deliberate suppression of material facts which struck at the root of its case. [2026 LL (PH) 264]Justice H. S. Grewal...
Setting aside a 2005 conviction in a culpable homicide case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the failure of the prosecution to explain grievous and sharp-edged injuries sustained by four of the accused in the same occurrence was not a mere omission but a deliberate suppression of material facts which struck at the root of its case. [2026 LL (PH) 264]
Justice H. S. Grewal allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 148, 304 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC, holding that the evidence disclosed a free fight in which both sides participated and sustained injuries, and that the prosecution had failed to establish that the appellants were the sole aggressors.
"The complete silence of the prosecution on this crucial aspect is not a mere omission but a deliberate suppression of material facts which strikes at the root of its case," the judge held.
The prosecution case arose out of FIR registered in 2000 alleging that the complainant along with his brother and nephew were assaulted with sticks and kirpan by the accused persons, over a private dispute. The complainant's brother died of his injuries.
The Sessions Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment, with all sentences to run concurrently. Appellant No. 5, Yog Raj, died during the pendency of the appeal and the proceedings against him stood abated.
The post-mortem conducted by PW-2 Dr. Subash Agnihotri recorded a head wound with an underlying fracture and blood in the and attributed the death to neurogenic and haemorrhagic shock, with injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Counsel for the appellants Advocate Nikhil Ghai contended that the prosecution had concealed the injuries sustained by the accused, four of whom had suffered injuries including grievous injuries on vital parts, which the prosecution had never explained.
After analysing the submissions, the Court held that the prosecution had not presented the true and complete facts before the trial Court. The case proceeded on the premise of an unprovoked attack by an unlawful assembly, whereas the evidence suggested otherwise. The testimony of PW-6 established a long-standing dispute and pre-existing bitterness between the parties, indicating that the incident was therefore not sudden but the outcome of an unresolved property dispute.
Further, relying on expert testimony, the Court recorded that four accused persons had sustained fresh injuries in the same occurrence, Yog Raj, aged about 67 years, had suffered a grievous incised injury on the forearm along with two other sharp-edged injuries, and the others bone-deep and lacerated injuries on the scalp and elsewhere.
Justice Grewal held that the presence of such injuries completely demolished the prosecution story that only the complainant party was assaulted, and that had the appellants alone been the aggressors, there was no plausible reason for four of them to be injured in this manner. Neither the ocular witnesses nor the Investigating Officer had attempted to explain the injuries.
The Court noted the deposition of Amit Prasad, IPS, then Superintendent of Police (Operations), Jalandhar, who had conducted an enquiry by recording statements of local residents and inspecting the spot, and had concluded that Balram Kapila and his companions were the aggressors.
While observing that such an enquiry is not substantive evidence, the Court held it to be a corroborative circumstance supporting the defence, particularly when read with the unexplained injuries and the admitted dispute.
The Court found serious doubt about the place of occurrence, blood-stained earth having been lifted from the main lane rather than the spot alleged, a finding the trial Court had itself recorded.
It further noted that only interested witnesses, the son and close relatives of the deceased, had been examined, with no independent witness from the locality despite the occurrence taking place in broad daylight in a thickly populated residential area; that there was unexplained delay in recording statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., affording opportunity for deliberation and embellishment; and that no sharp-edged weapon allegedly used was ever recovered from the appellants.
Holding that both sides had participated and sustained injuries, the Court observed that the complainant party appeared to have reached the disputed spot first to assert its claim over the ventilator and the wall, leading to the confrontation, and that the appellants appeared to have acted in the course of the quarrel rather than launching a pre-planned attack.
It noted that an FIR had already been registered at 03:30 p.m. on 21.05.2000 on the statement of the appellant Yog Raj concerning the same occurrence, and the case against the appellants therefore appeared to be a counterblast.
The Court held that the trial Court had failed to appreciate these circumstances and had accepted the prosecution version in its entirety merely because one member of the complainant party had succumbed to his injuries.
Holding that the evidence created a strong probability that the complainant party had initiated the confrontation and suppressed material facts regarding its own participation, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.10.2005, and acquitted the appellants by extending the benefit of doubt.
Title: Pardeep Kumar and others v. State of Punjab
Appearance: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, for the appellants;
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab;
Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the complainant