The Delhi High Court acquitted Gir Raj in a murder case, setting aside his conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC. The Bench held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and reiterated that suspicion cannot replace evidence.
In a judgment dealing with the rigor required in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the High Court of Delhi acquitted Gir Raj, who had been convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja set aside the trial court’s conviction and life sentence, finding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Background of the case
The prosecution case arose from the night of May 12 and 13, 1998, when police received information about a suspected murder at Ram Sons Farm House, Hiran Kudna Mod, within the area of Police Station Nangloi. On reaching the spot, Sub-Inspector Anil Gandhi along with other officials found a blood-stained mattress and bricks inside a room, but neither the victim nor any eyewitnesses were available at the scene.
During investigation, it was found that the injured person, Harbhajan Singh, had already been taken to DDU Hospital, where he was declared “brought dead.” Gir Raj, who worked as a labourer at the farmhouse and had informed the owner and the police, was arrested.
According to the prosecution, during interrogation the appellant confessed and led the police to the tube-well room of the farmhouse, from where a blood-stained iron rod (gadala) was recovered from beneath a gunny bag of dung cakes.
By its judgment dated August 25, 2004, the trial court held Gir Raj guilty relying on three main circumstances:
- Motive, based on allegations that the deceased cast an “evil eye” on the appellant’s wife.
- Last seen, as both the appellant and the deceased were allegedly present together at the farmhouse.
- Recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused.
Submissions before the High Court
Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, argued that the conviction rested solely on unreliable circumstantial evidence and that it lacked direct proof. She submitted that the prosecution witness on motive, Hari Singh, retracted his initial statement during further examination, claiming it was made under pressure from the investigating officer. She also challenged the reliability of Ram Khilari, the father of the deceased, pointing out that his testimony contained contradictions.
With respect to the weapon recovery, the appellant contended that the disclosure statement was inadmissible because it was allegedly made while the accused was in custody. She referred to Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 16 SCC 510, stressing that the police witnesses did not depose the exact words attributed to the accused. She further relied on the FSL report, which showed that no blood was detected on the recovered iron rod.
On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Aman Usman, defended the trial court’s reasoning. He argued that the “last seen” theory was established because only the appellant and the deceased were in the farmhouse on that night. He also rejected the appellant’s defence that 7–8 intruders had entered by jumping over the boundary wall, terming it implausible.
The APP submitted that the recovery of the weapon at the accused’s instance was incriminating under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, citing Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh. He further argued that the medical evidence of Dr. Komal Singh supported the conclusion that the death resulted from blunt force injuries, which could have been caused using the recovered gadala.
High Court’s analysis
The High Court examined the prosecution’s circumstances in three broad categories motive, disclosure and recovery, and the last seen theory.
(a) Motive: The bench found that Hari Singh did not support the prosecution case, making his testimony ineffective. It also observed that even though Ram Khilari allegedly received a murder threat from the appellant days earlier, he did not take any action, did not approach the police or the village panchayat, and did not warn his son. On this basis, the bench held that the prosecution failed to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt.
(b) Disclosure and recovery: Regarding the disclosure and recovery, the court noted serious contradictions in witness accounts. Independent witness Maan Singh stated that the disclosure was recorded in the morning at the farmhouse, while Sub-Inspector Anil Gandhi claimed it was written in the evening at the police station.
The court also pointed out a major gap in the physical evidence. It noted that while the recovery memo (Ex. PW-2/D) and witnesses PW-17 and PW-18 described the gadala as having blood-like stains, the gadala produced before the trial court did not bear blood stains, an aspect acknowledged by PW-4/Dr. Komal Singh in his post-mortem evidence.
The bench relied on the principle from Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti, observing:
“In order to enable the Court to safely rely upon the evidence of the investigating officer, it is necessary that the exact words attributed to an accused, as statement made by him, be brought on record and, for this purpose the investigating officer is obliged to depose in his evidence the exact statement and not by merely saying that a discovery panchnama of weapon of offence was drawn as the accused was willing to take it out from a particular place.”
It concluded that mere discovery was not enough to infer that the appellant hid the weapon or used it, and that the prosecution failed to connect the recovered rod to the offence.
(c) Last seen and defence of outside intruders: On the “last seen” theory and the appellant’s explanation involving outside intruders, the High Court held that although the prosecution’s submissions created suspicion, they did not meet the stringent standard required for conviction.
Quoting the settled rule from Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024) 12 SCC 202, the bench observed:
“It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The court reiterated that the burden squarely lies on the prosecution to prove the accused’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove innocence.
Finding that the prosecution did not satisfy the legal requirements for establishing guilt through circumstantial evidence, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted Gir Raj of the murder charge. The bench set aside the trial court’s conviction judgment dated August 25, 2004, and the sentencing order dated September 3, 2004, and discharged the appellant’s bail bond and surety.
Case Title: Gir Raj v. The State NCT of Delhi CRL.A. 927/2004
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE