Insufficient Evidence To Link Accused To Death Of Deceased Found In His Premises: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Murder Convict

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently acquitted a murder convict sentenced to life imprisonment in 2019, on the ground of lack of sufficient evidence. The deceased was found dead in the premises of one Dinesh who was accused of kidnapping him for extorting land and money from his father.

The bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, “when no candid material exist(s) on record, thus suggestive about the cause of demise of the deceased, thus irrespective of the fact that the body of the deceased was found in the premises of the convict-appellant. Resultantly, rather no conclusion can be made that the convict-appellant had any incriminatory role as such in the demise of the deceased.”

It was noted that the cause of the deceased's death was neither strangulation nor smothering, and that he did not succumb to any ante mortem injuries. Additionally, no incriminatory weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant-convict.

The Court further said that the mere presence of a tranquilliser in the premises of the accused cannot lead to the conclusion that it was forcibly administered to the accused and lead to his demise, unless the tranquilliser was found in the viscera of the deceased, and, in such a quantity, that it evidently led to his death.

The Court also rejected the disclosure statement of the accused wherein he was stated to have kidnapped the deceased with the intention of extorting the transfer of his father's land into the accused's name.

Recovery of the mobile phone from which the accused allegedly sent the messages to extort money and transfer of land was also rejected by the Court by calling it “fictitious recovery.”

Consequently, the Court acquitted the accused stating that the decision of the lower Court “suffers from a gross mis-appreciation, and, non appraisal of evidence.”

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 141

Appearance: U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.

Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

J.S.Mehndiratta, Advocate Mr. Rahul Dhanda, Advocate for the complainant.

Click here to read/download the order