Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Sentenced To Death For Gang Rape And Murder

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted two men who had been convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court in 2022 for the rape and murder of a 19-year-old girl.

A bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "...there is some suspicion regarding the accused having committed the offence. However, the chain of circumstantial evidence available on record is not so complete so as to conclusively and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused."

Speaking for the bench Justice Bedi added, "we are conscious of the heinous nature of the offence but at the same time, the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt which it has been unable to do. In fact, from the evidence on record, there is no evidence of the deceased having been kidnapped, intoxicated subjected to gangrape and thereafter murdered by none other than the present accused."

The Court was hearing an appeal against the conviction and reference to confirm the death penalty awarded by the Trial Court in its December 2022 judgment. For context, the trial court had convicted the duo for gang rape under Section  376-D IPC and had sentenced each of them to life imprisonment. Further the trial court had convicted them for murder (Section 302 read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention) IPC) of the deceased and for this the trial court had imposed the death penalty. 

According to the prosecution, the19 years old victim who was working in a factory was often harassed by the accused Sumit and she went missing on May 11, 2017. The next day her dead body was recovered in a decomposed manner. 

During the investigation, it was allegedly found that the accused, Vikas and Sumit, had committed gang rape and murdered the victim. The Trial Court convicted both accused of conspiring to commit murder and gang rape under Sections 328, 376-A, 376-D, and 302 of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The Trial Court sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 376-D IPC and awarded death penalty under Section 302 IPC read with 120-B IPC.

After analysing the submissions and material available on record, the High Court found that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence.

No Evidence To Support Last Seen Theory

While examining the different planks of circumstantial evidence in the case, the Court noted that, "the last seen theory" was supported the testimony of the witness, who had turned hostile.

"The Investigating Agency also produced different CCTV footages of a car travelling from Sonipat to Rohtak. However, neither the accused nor the deceased are visible in the car in question. Even the registration number of the vehicle is not visible," the bench noted further.

Hence, the bench opined that, "There is absolutely no evidence of the deceased being seen last in the company of the accused."

Motive Can't Establish Guilt Without Substantial Evidence

The Court also rejected the prosecution's contention that the motive substantiate the committing of the in the case. It was alleged that both the accused used to tease the victim and as per the complaint, they had earlier harassed her.

The prosecution also brought on record CDRs showing that the accused Sumit used to repeatedly call the deceased and between 10.04.2017 and 08.05.2017 Sumit @ Fundi from both his cellphones had called on the two cellphones of the deceased 555 times whereas the deceased has called Sumit @ Fundi 56 times.

Referring to catena of judgements, the Court opined, "in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is an essential plank of evidence and the absence of motive would certainly create a doubt in the prosecution case. However, it is also a settled proposition of law that motive in itself, without any other substantial evidence, even if strong is not sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused."

Accused's Clothes Being Stained With Deceased's Blood Does Not Mean Murder Was Committed by Him Without Substantive Evidence

The Court, further referring to  Rajasthan High Court's decision in Bheru Lal Versus State (Rajasthan) (2019) and Apex Court's decision in Alagupandi @ Alagupandian Versus State of Tamil Nadu (2013), said that the recovery of a weapon on the disclosure statement of an accused only establishes that the person making the disclosure statement knew where the weapon had been kept.

"However, the recovery of a weapon itself cannot lead to the assumption or prove that it was the accused who had committed the offence. Further, merely because the clothes of the accused were stained with the blood of the deceased would not lead to the assumption that it was the accused who had committed the offence of murder in the absence of any other substantive evidence," the bench further added.

Absence Of Semen In Deceased's Body

The Court further added that there is the evidence of motive and that of recovery of bloodstained bricks on the disclosure statement of the accused and bloodstained clothes from Sumit @ Fundi.

"As regards the presence of semen on the underwear and trouser respectively of the accused Sumit @ Lalu and Vikas Lalu, the same would not further the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever in the absence of any semen being detected on the deceased," it added.

Considering the missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court found considerable merit in the present appeal and the accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appeal was allowed and the trial court's conviction and sentence was set aside. 

Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for the appellant-State.

Mr. J.S. Mehandiratta, Advocate with Mr. E.A. George, Advocate with

Mr. Randeep Singh Dhull, Advocate, for the respondent/accused in MR-7-2022 and for the appellant in CRA-D-229-2023.

Title: STATE OF HARYANA v. SUMIT @ FUNDI & ANOTHER

Click here to read/download the order