DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, and one Mange Ram, were convicted in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2000, for offences under Ss. 302/364/392/394/201 read with Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, Haryana. They were awarded life sentence under Sec. 302 IPC, and lesser sentence on the remaining convictions, vide order dtd. 11/7/2003. The two then filed separate appeals before Punjab and Haryana High Court. During the pendency of his appeal the co­accused Mange Ram passed away on 24/10/2004, and his appeal stood abated vide order dtd. 11/5/2017. The appeal of the present appellant was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of the trial court was upheld by the High Court, vide its order dtd. 31/5/2017. His SLP before this Court was given leave on 28/3/2022.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The 'evidence' of last seen and the "discoveries" made from the information given by the appellant. The facts of the case are as under:­

(3.) The deceased Gurmail Singh was a resident of village­Dhimo, District, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. On the morning of 8/5/2000, he left his village on his tractor, for the nearby village of 'Dadupur', (which is at a distance of 15­20 kilometers). In Dadupur he was to meet his sister and his brother­in­law. He was with his sister and brother­in­law between 2.00 P.M. to 5.30 P.M on 8/5/2000 and according to his brother­in­law (PW­1) he left their house at about 5.30 P.M on 8/5/2000. Gurmail Singh never returned to his village. Meanwhile, Harbans Singh, the brother of the deceased (the two brothers were staying together with their families in village Dhimo), goes to village Dadupur on 11/5/2000 i.e. after 3 days, to enquire from his sister about the whereabouts of their brother, when he is told that the deceased had left their house on 8/5/2000 itself at about 5.30 P.M.!