Published on: 18th January 2025
Authored by: Mayuri Mayee Singh
SOA National Institute Of Law
- Case Title: Dharambir @ Dharma v. State of Haryana
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1858 of 2009
- Appellant Name: Dharambir @ Dharma
- Respondent Name: State of Haryana
- Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Date of Judgement: 16th April 2024
In the case of Dharambir @ Dharma v. State of Haryana (2024), the decision of the Supreme Court of India addressed the testimony of two key prosecution witnesses, Krishan Kumar (PW-5) and Ram Kumar (PW-8), which ultimately led to the acquittal of the accused.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The late Karambir, his brother Krishan Kumar, and a few others went to Prabhat Cinema in Bhiwani on June 5, 1998, around 8:30 a.m. Karambir was stabbed in the chest by the accused, Dharambir, at around 11:30 a.m., which resulted in Karambir’s death. Dharambir’s suspicion that Karambir was having extramarital affairs with his wife was cited as the motivation.
Rohtas Singh, the SHO of the Police Station of Bhiwani, received information about the incident from the manager of Prabhat Cinema. He and other police personnel visited the place of incident and recorded the statement of Krishan Kumar and registered the First Information Report for the offence punishable under section 302.
On 7th June, 1998, the accused was arrested, and the charge sheet was filed with the concerned magistrate, Court of Session, Bhiwani. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on the testimonies of first informant Krishan Kumar and Ram Kumar, who claimed that the accused had made an extra-judicial confession before him.
ISSUES RAISED
The core issue before the court was whether the testimony of two key prosecution witnesses, Krishan Kumar and Ram Kumar, was credible enough to prove the defendant guilty of the commission of murder. The court found discrepancies and conflicts in the testimony of Krishan Kumar and Ram Kumar, which created doubt regarding their credibility.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
Dharambir’s counsel contended that evidence given by prosecution witness Krishan Kumar was not credible as he made improvements from his earlier statements upon which the FIR was registered. The time of incident provided by Krishan Kumar did not match with the time provided by Raj Kumar.
Counsel contended that Krishan Kumar did not get any blood stains on him, which made his presence in the cinema hall doubtful. Being the brother of the deceased, his natural reaction would have been to save the injured and admit him to a hospital to save his life. The witness himself admitted that he did not get any blood stains on his clothes and hands, which made his presence doubtful.
Appellant’s counsel relied on the judgement by this court in Pritinder Singh Alias Lovely v. State of Punjab and contended that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and testimony of Ram Kumar, who claimed that the accused made extra-judicial confession before him, has been denied by the evidence of Piare Lal.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
Learned Additional Advocate General representing the state denied the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. He said that evidence of Krishan Kumar, the deceased’s real brother, is natural and reliable, and he had no reason to falsely incriminate Dharambir. The respondent argued that the findings of the Trial Court and High Court were enough to convict the accused and the appeal should be dismissed.
RATIONALE
There was no dispute regarding the death of Karambir being homicidal as proved by the medical jurist, Dr. Hemant Singh. According to the testimony given by Krishan Kumar, the accused had a grudge in his mind that Karambir had developed illicit relations with his wife.
On 5th June, 1998, both the brothers, i.e., deceased Karambir and Krishan Kumar (PW-5), went to see their maternal aunt, who was admitted in a hospital at Bhiwani for treatment. After meeting their maternal aunt, the brothers went to see a movie in Prabhat Cinema, Bhiwani. They were accompanied by four other persons, namely Ravinder, Suresh, and two by the name of Mahender. As per the FIR, all of them entered Prabhat Cinema in the morning at about 8:30 a.m. and occupied the first row.
Krishan Kumar stated on oath that he was sitting with his brother Karambir in the first row. As per the statement of Krishan Kumar, accused Dharambir was sitting in the next row in front of the chairs occupied by the witness and deceased. However, if Krishan Kumar and the deceased were occupying the first row, then there could not have existed any row in front of them.
Also, as per Raj Kumar, manager of Prabhat Cinema, the deceased’s body was lying between the seats of the first and second rows. If the deceased was sitting in the front row, then it is impossible that deceased Karambir, after being stabbed with a knife, would fall between the two rows.
It was also a pure chance visit of Krishan Kumar and his deceased brother to Bhiwani. The accused did not have any slight idea about their visit to Bhiwani on that particular day and that they would be going to Prabhat Cinema to watch the first show.
The prosecution also tried to prove through Jai Kishan that the accused had purchased a knife from him. However, Jai Kishan became hostile. Ravinder and Mahender, who visited Prabhat Cinema along with Krishan Kumar and the deceased, were examined as evidence. They both turned hostile.
Raj Kumar (PW-9), manager of Prabhat Cinema, stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the crime scene, 3 to 4 persons of village Pehladgarh were present there, and they told the police that the deceased hailed from village Pehladgarh. If at all there was an iota of truth in the claim of Krishan Kumar (PW-5) that he was present in Prabhat Cinema with his deceased brother, this vague information would not have been provided to the police officials because Krishan Kumar (PW-5) would have immediately disclosed his brother’s identity.
The court was of the opinion that the presence of Krishan Kumar was doubtful and his testimony was not trustworthy. Krishan Kumar did not make any attempt to save the victim, who was his real brother. The natural reaction expected from a brother would have been to take instant steps to take the victim to the hospital to save his life.
Ram Kumar stated that he and Piare Lal were sitting at his house when the accused approached them and confessed that he had killed his father’s elder brother’s son, Karambir, at Prabhat Cinema. Ram Kumar also stated that he and Piare Lal took the accused to Bhiwani and produced him before the police.
But Piare Lal was not examined by the prosecution; rather, he was examined in defense. Piare Lal categorically denied any confession made by the accused to Ram Kumar. Therefore, the testimony of Ram Kumar about the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was contradicted by the testimony of Piare Lal. The court was convinced that both prosecution witnesses, i.e., Krishan Kumar and Ram Kumar, fell in the category of unreliable witnesses.
DEFECTS OF LAW
IPC Section 302 prescribes the punishment for murder: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine.”
According to the English jurist Blackstone, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.” This saying properly fits in this case, as the accused, Dharambir @ Dharma, had suffered long-term conviction and was sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The investigation procedure was not conducted properly by the police, which led to false accusations against Dharambir. The Trial Court failed to deliver justice to Dharambir. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana rejected the appeal filed by Dharambir and confirmed the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
Trial Court and High Court failed to determine the credibility of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, which resulted in the suffering of the accused. Such failure on the part of the courts is against the Principle of Natural Justice. Finally, the Supreme Court of India delivered justice to the appellant. The appellant filed the appeal in the Apex Court for justice on the basis of whether the testimonies of two key prosecution witnesses were reliable enough to declare the accused guilty.
The Supreme Court of India found discrepancies and conflicts in the testimony of Krishan Kumar and Ram Kumar, which created doubt regarding their credibility. The prosecution failed to prove the charge and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
As a result, the accused got freedom from long-term imprisonment and false accusations on the benefit of the doubt given to him. The accused was freed, bearing heavy costs, as such conviction wasted almost 25 years of his life span. No compensation or any kind of benefit could bring back the wasted 25 years of his life.
INFERENCE
As a result, the Supreme Court declared the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana unsustainable, and the accused deserved to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of the doubt. The merits of the appeal were allowed to the appellant, and the impugned order passed by High Court and Trial Court was quashed and set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charge.