DHAN RAJ @ DHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on May 09,2014

Dhan Raj @ Dhand Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

PANKAJ KUMAR AND ANR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-488] [REFERRED]
STATE OF U.P. VS. MAHFOOZ ANSARI [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PRAVINSINH GANPATSINH CHAUHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-262] [REFERRED TO]
DRONACHARYA @ PILLU BANJARE; PAWAN KUMAR; SHAILENDRA KUMAR NISHAD; RAVISHANKAR ALIAS BITTU; BASANT DHRITLAHRE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2015-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
DASARU AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHANA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-448] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE URF NAND BIHARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
CHARANDAS SWAMI VS. STATE OF GUJRAT AND ANOTHER. [LAWS(SC)-2017-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
BISWAJIT DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2018-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMDAS PANIKA VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
MAHIMANANDA MISHRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
AMARLAL BHARTI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
BALASAHEB GURLING TODKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. PRAVINSINH GANPATSINH CHAUHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-267] [REFERRED TO]
BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. VS. BHUPEN HALDER [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-126] [REFERRED]
BAIJ NATH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-1-164] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. PARVEEN SHARMA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-201] [REFERRED TO]
KANDU MURMU @ KHANDU MURMU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-502] [REFERRED TO]
SATWINDER SINGH @ MINTU VS. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-488] [REFERRED TO]
SAURABH VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-144] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH @ LEELU SON OF SHRI SATYAPAL, BY CASTE YADAV VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-1-337] [REFERRED TO]
NUPUR TALWAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
KUNWAR PAL SAINI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-152] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA, S/O RAMAYAN KASHYAP VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS [LAWS(CHH)-2015-10-42] [REFERRED]
DAMESHWARRAM VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHAILENDRA RAJDEV PASVAN [LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-173] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-313] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. RANJEET YADAV [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-89] [REFERRED]
GAJENDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-213] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPHAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-529] [REFERRED]
JOSE @ PAPPACHAN VS. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY & ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2016-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMDAS PANIKA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2017-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
BALLOO @ BALRAM KAHAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
DNYANESHWAR @ BANDU @ LAKHYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
PREET KAMAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-8-227] [REFERRED TO]
MALAICHAMY & ANR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-2019-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
DHOOM SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-241] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTUA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-201] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKEEL AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
MEENA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-54] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)These appeals arise from the impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein vide a common judgment dated February 26, 2010, the High Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 496-DB of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 510-DB of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of 2009 and Criminal Revision No. 334 of 2000. The present appeals however arise out of Criminal Appeal No. 496-DB of 1999 filed by accused Dhan Raj challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated September 25 and 27, 1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in Sessions Case No.21 of 21.5.1997/13.08.1998 and Criminal Appeal No. 719-DB of 2009 filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment of acquittal dated February 18, 2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in Session Case No.73 of 21.5.1997/17.3.2008, acquitting the accused Badal of the charges framed against him.
(2.)The High Court in the present matters convicted the accused appellants on the basis of circumstantial evidence by the impugned judgment. It has been well established by leading judicial precedents that where the prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence, only the circumstantial evidence of the highest order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In order to base conviction on circumstantial evidence the circumstantial evidence put forth by the prosecution should establish a complete unbroken chain of events so that only one inference is drawn out from the same. If more than one inference can be drawn then the accused should be entitled to the benefit of doubt.
(3.)In the present appeals we therefore would evaluate the case of the prosecution in terms of the evidence brought on record and the statements and discovery made in the course of investigation.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.