{"id":162439,"date":"2009-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-12T04:18:26","modified_gmt":"2016-11-11T22:48:26","slug":"manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009<\/div>\n
              Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004\n                               -1-\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                    Crl.Appeal No.958 DB of 2004\n\n                                   Date of Decision: 16.1.2009.\n\n\nManoj Kumar\n                                            .......Appellant\n\n                         Vs.\n\nThe State of Punjab\n\n                                            ......Respondent\n\n\nCORAM:      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n            HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.\n\n\nPRESENT: MR.S.S.Rana, Advocate, for the appellant.\n         Mr Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,\n         for respondent.\n                         ***\n\nDAYA CHAUDHARY, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated<\/p>\n
1.11.2004 and 4.11.2004 in Sessions Case No.8 of 26.4.2002 passed by<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide which Manoj Kumar accused-appellant<\/p>\n
has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC<\/p>\n
and 201 IPC and sentenced as under:\n<\/p>\n
      U\/s 302\/34 IPC     to under imprisonment for life and a fine of
\n                         Rs.2000\/-.In default of payment of fine to undergo
\n                         further RI for a period of one month; and
\n      U\/s 201 IPC        to undergo RI for four years and a fine of
\n                         Rs.1000\/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo
\n                         further RI for one month.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                 -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
                          Substantive sentences were directed to run
\n                          concurrently.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The brief facts of the case, as put up by the prosecution, are<\/p>\n
that Sukhchain Singh was working as a Head Teacher in the Government<\/p>\n
Middle School, Paddey Bet. On 31.5.2003, at about 6.00 a.m., when he<\/p>\n
was passing through the ridge of his fields, he found the dead-body of an<\/p>\n
unknown person in the sugarcane crop, which was buried under the earth,<\/p>\n
however, a part of that dead-body was lying naked. It appeared to him that<\/p>\n
some unknown person after committing the murder had buried the dead-<\/p>\n
body. On reaching the village, he narrated the aforesaid fact to Karnail<\/p>\n
Singh, Sarpanch and Mohinder Singh, Ex-Sarpanch. Thereafter, he along<\/p>\n
with Karnail Singh Sarpanch went to the police station for lodging the<\/p>\n
report. In the police station, Sukhchain Singh made a statement Ex.PA,<\/p>\n
which was recorded by ASI Iqbal Singh, and on the basis of which, a<\/p>\n
formal FIR Ex.PA\/2 was registered. The special report Ex.PA\/3 was also<\/p>\n
sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
             Thereafter, ASI Iqbal Singh along with          Karnail Singh,<\/p>\n
Sukhchain Singh and other police officials, reached at the sugarcane fields<\/p>\n
of Sukhchain Singh. A telephonic message was also sent to DSP Bholath,<\/p>\n
who came to the spot. In his presence the dead-body of an unidentified<\/p>\n
person was taken out from underneath the earth. It was taken into<\/p>\n
possession vide memo Ex.PB, attested by Sukhchain Singh and Bakshi Ram<\/p>\n
ASI. Inquest report Ex.PG was prepared and the same was handed over to<\/p>\n
Harjit Singh and Harinderpal Singh, Constables, for getting the post mortem<\/p>\n
conducted. The statements of witnesses were recorded. A diary in a badly
\n                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
damaged condition was taken out from the pant worn by the deceased<\/p>\n
person. It was taken into possession      vide memo Ex.PD, attested by<\/p>\n
Sukhchain Singh and Bakshi Ram ASI. The site plan Ex.PJ of the place of<\/p>\n
recovery of the dead-body was prepared by ASI Iqbal Singh. A<\/p>\n
photographer was called at the spot, who took the photographs of the dead-<\/p>\n
body, the photographs and negatives of the dead-body were taken into<\/p>\n
possession vide memo Ex.PK by SI Sarabjit Singh and the case property<\/p>\n
was deposited with the MHC with seals intact.\n<\/p>\n
            The investigation of the case was entrusted to Amrik Singh,<\/p>\n
Sub Inspector, the then SHO. P.S.Dhilwan. On 26.6.2003 when he was<\/p>\n
present in the police station, one Jaswinder Singh alias Chhinda produced<\/p>\n
appellant Manoj Kumar before him. He recorded statement of Jaswinder<\/p>\n
Singh and arrested Manoj Kumar appellant vide memo Ex.PL and<\/p>\n
interrogated. On 30.6.2003, the investigation of the case was entrusted to<\/p>\n
ASI Bakshi Ram. Manoj Kumar appellant, who was already in the police<\/p>\n
custody, was interrogated in the presence of Constable Gurvinder Singh<\/p>\n
and M.C. Ravinder Kumar. During interrogation, the appellant disclosed<\/p>\n
that he had kept concealed a ‘Datar’, in the fields of Sukhchain Singh, near<\/p>\n
the ridge, in the area of village Nurpur Januhan, about which he only knew.<\/p>\n
The disclosure statement Ex.PG of the appellant was reduced into writing<\/p>\n
which was attested by aforesaid witnesses.      On the basis of the said<\/p>\n
disclosure statement, the ‘Datar’ was recovered. A rough sketch of the Datar<\/p>\n
(Ex.PD\/1)   was prepared, which was taken into possession vide memo<\/p>\n
Ex.PD, attested by the aforesaid witnesses.      After completion of    the<\/p>\n
investigation, Manoj Kumar, appellant, was challaned.\n<\/p>\n
                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
             After the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Kapurthala, charge under Sections 302 read with section 34 and 201 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused-appellant, to which he<\/p>\n
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
             In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9<\/p>\n
witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
             PW-1 Harvinder Singh, photographer, has deposed that he<\/p>\n
took photographs of the dead-body of an unknown person lying in the<\/p>\n
sugarcane field. The photographs and negatives are Ex.P1 to P4. PW-2<\/p>\n
Sukhchain Singh, who is complainant of the case, has reiterated the same<\/p>\n
facts as mentioned in his statement Ex.PA, on the basis of which the FIR<\/p>\n
was recorded. PW-3 Jaswinder Singh stated that in the year 2003 Manoj<\/p>\n
Mandal and Santosh Mandal were employed by him as labourers and they<\/p>\n
were residing in his Dera in a house constructed by him in the area of<\/p>\n
village Noorpur Januhan. In the month of May 2003, Sita Ram brother of<\/p>\n
Manoj Kumar appellant, asked him to render account to him for the labour<\/p>\n
done by him and the amount was paid to Sita Ram, brother of the accused.<\/p>\n
Both of them resided in his house for 2 to 3 days and told him that they were<\/p>\n
going to Santosh Mandal’s relation, who was residing in a Dera.          The<\/p>\n
accused along with Sita Ram and Santosh Mandal left his Dera and on the<\/p>\n
same night, Sita Ram and Manoj Mandal came back in the late night but<\/p>\n
Santosh Mandal was not with them. After some days, Sita Ram and Manoj<\/p>\n
Mandal (appellant) told him that they were going to Bihar. In the month of<\/p>\n
June, 2003, Manoj Mandal (appellant) again came back to his Dera and no<\/p>\n
other person was with him. At that time, the appellant told him that he and
\n                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Sita Ram had come from Bihar and police was after them. The appellant<\/p>\n
told him that he and Sita Ram had committed the murder of Santosh Mandal<\/p>\n
with a ‘Toka’ meant for cutting sugarcane before they went to Bihar from<\/p>\n
Punjab and the dead-body was buried in the sugarcane fields of Sukhchain<\/p>\n
Singh. It was further stated by PW-3 that the appellant told him that he be<\/p>\n
produced before the police and thereafter he produced the appellant before<\/p>\n
the police on 25\/26.6.2003 in Police Station Dhilwan and his statement was<\/p>\n
recorded by the police.\n<\/p>\n
            PW-4 Ravinder Kumar         stated that he was a Municipal<\/p>\n
Councillor of Dhilwan. On 30.6.2003, he went to police station Dhilwan<\/p>\n
where ASI Bakshi Ram interrogated the appellant in his presence. The<\/p>\n
accused made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a Gandasi \/<\/p>\n
Toka at the motor of Sukhchain Singh, by burying the same near the ridge<\/p>\n
of the tube-well of Sukhchain Singh. The disclosure statement Ex.PC was<\/p>\n
reduced into writing, which was thumb marked by the appellant and attested<\/p>\n
by him and Balwinder Singh Constable. Further the appellant got recovered<\/p>\n
the Toka Ex.P-5 vide recovery memo Ex.PD.\n<\/p>\n
            PW-5 ASI Bakshi Ram stated that on 31.5.2003 while he was<\/p>\n
posted as ASI in Police Station Dhilwan, he along with ASI Iqbal Singh<\/p>\n
went to Bhandal Bet Police Post,   and when they reached in the area of<\/p>\n
Noorpur Janoha, Sukhchain Singh made        statement Ex.PA     and in his<\/p>\n
presence the dead-body of the deceased was found in the sugarcane field. A<\/p>\n
diary from the pocket of deceased was also recovered on which name of<\/p>\n
deceased was written. The diary of the deceased was taken into possession<\/p>\n
vide memo Ex.PD.\n<\/p>\n
                 Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
              PW-6 ASI Iqbal Singh stated that he recorded the statement of<\/p>\n
Sukhchain Singh. He along with Karnail Singh and Sukhchain Singh saw<\/p>\n
the dead-body of the deceased in a sugarcane field. A telephonic message<\/p>\n
was sent to DSP Bholath and the dead-body of an unidentified person was<\/p>\n
taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB. The dead-body was handed over<\/p>\n
to Harjit Singh and Harinderpal Singh Constables       for getting the post<\/p>\n
mortem conducted. It was further stated by PW-6 that a diary from the pant<\/p>\n
of the dead-body was recovered which was in a badly damaged condition.<\/p>\n
              PW-7 Sub Inspector Amrik Singh stated that on 26.6.2003<\/p>\n
while he was posted as Sub Inspector,       one Jaswinder Singh produced<\/p>\n
Manoj Kumar appellant before him. He recorded the statement of Jaswinder<\/p>\n
Singh and the accused was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PL.<\/p>\n
              PW-8 Lakhi Kant Mandal, father of the deceased, stated that<\/p>\n
Sita Ram Mandal and Dalip Mandal are brothers of accused Manoj Kumar.<\/p>\n
About two years back, Santosh Mandal was brought by Manoj Kumar<\/p>\n
accused and his brother Sita Ram Mandal in the State of Punjab. About<\/p>\n
one year and two months back, the Punjab police came to his house in the<\/p>\n
State of Jharkhand and showed the diary Ex.P-6 . That diary belonged to his<\/p>\n
son Santosh Mandal, which was identified by him from his writing. The<\/p>\n
police recorded his statement and he came to Punjab.<\/p>\n
              PW-9 Dr.Ashok Bhagat, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,<\/p>\n
Kapurthala,     stated that on 31.5.2003, he conducted the post mortem<\/p>\n
examination on the dead-body of an unknown person as a member of the<\/p>\n
Board. He further deposed that the dead-body was putrefied soaked with
\n                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
dust. Most of the soft tissues     were missing.    Right arm amputated at<\/p>\n
shoulder. A small piece of cloth was found in the mouth. Both legs were<\/p>\n
tied near the ankle with a piece of cloth. Brain metal, soft tissues of<\/p>\n
chest,lungs, heart and great mussels were missing. Peritoneum,mouth and<\/p>\n
esophagus, stomach and intestines were missing. Liver, spleen, kidneys,<\/p>\n
bladder and organs of generation were missing. In the opinion of the doctor<\/p>\n
the cause of death was due to asphyxia and injuries as described, which<\/p>\n
were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries<\/p>\n
were anti-mortem in nature. The probable time that elapsed between injury<\/p>\n
and death could not be ascertained and between death and post mortem was<\/p>\n
probable more than a month.\n<\/p>\n
            Statement of the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C<\/p>\n
was recorded, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. He<\/p>\n
pleaded that he has falsely been implicated in the case.<\/p>\n
            The trial Court after going through the entire evidence on<\/p>\n
record and hearing arguments of learned counsel for parties, convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced the accused-appellant as afore-stated. Hence the present appeal.<\/p>\n
            Mr. S.S.Rana, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that<\/p>\n
case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and in the case<\/p>\n
of circumstantial evidence, the Court should be extra cautious before<\/p>\n
arriving at a conclusion that the circumstances are sufficient to bring home<\/p>\n
the guilt to the accused and the established circumstances must not only be<\/p>\n
consistent with the guilt of accused but, at the same time, they must be in<\/p>\n
consistent with his innocence.       While appreciating the circumstantial<\/p>\n
evidence, the Court should not take in isolation the various circumstances
\n                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
and it is very necessary to take over-all view of the matter. Mr. Rana further<\/p>\n
argued that the prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused<\/p>\n
beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused should not be held liable for<\/p>\n
committing murder only on the basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises.<\/p>\n
            The accused-appellant has been found guilty of the offence as<\/p>\n
the trial Court has believed the version of the prosecution that Santosh<\/p>\n
Mandal was brought to Punjab by Manoj Kumar appellant and Sita Ram<\/p>\n
Mandal for the purpose of doing labour and the father of the deceased was<\/p>\n
also examined by the prosecution. According to statement of Lakhi Kant<\/p>\n
Mandal PW-8(father of the deceased), Santosh Mandal deceased was his<\/p>\n
son and Sita Ram Mandal and Manoj Kumar appellant were belonging to<\/p>\n
his village. The father of the deceased identified the handwriting of Santosh<\/p>\n
Mandal.\n<\/p>\n
            The next circumstance of the prosecution which has been<\/p>\n
believed by the trial Court that the deceased was last seen in the company<\/p>\n
of Manoj Kumar appellant and Sita Ram Mandal, in the month of May<\/p>\n
2003, by Jaswinder Singh. Jaswinder Singh (PW3) stated that in the month<\/p>\n
of May 2003 Sita Ram brother of Manoj Kumar accused asked him to give<\/p>\n
his account for the labour done by him. It was further stated by Jaswinder<\/p>\n
Singh that Manoj Kumar accused and Sita Ram Mandal stayed in his house<\/p>\n
for 2-3 days and they told him that they were going to a relation of Santosh<\/p>\n
Mandal, who was residing in a house at Bhandal Bet. Manoj Kumar<\/p>\n
appellant and his brother Sita Ram Mandal and Santosh Mandal left the<\/p>\n
house of Jaswinder Singh on the same night. Later on only Sita Ram and<\/p>\n
Manoj Kumar came to his house late in the night and Santosh Mandal was
\n                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
not with them. He further stated that after some time, Sita Ram and Manoj<\/p>\n
Kumar told him that they were going to Bihar. Manoj Kumar accused came<\/p>\n
to his house in the month of June 2003 and thereafter the deceased was<\/p>\n
never seen by him in the company of Manoj Kumar accused and Sita Ram<\/p>\n
Mandal.\n<\/p>\n
            The trial Court has relied on the extra-judicial confession of the<\/p>\n
appellant before Jaswinder Singh regarding the mode and manner in which<\/p>\n
the murder of Santosh Mandal was committed by him, along with Sita Ram<\/p>\n
Mandal. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the extra-judicial<\/p>\n
confession without corroboration should not have been relied and<\/p>\n
conviction on such extra judicial confession is not safe.<\/p>\n
            The learned counsel further argued that the dead-body of<\/p>\n
Santosh Mandal was not identified by anybody in such like circumstances,<\/p>\n
it cannot be said that the dead-body was of deceased Santosh Mandal or<\/p>\n
somebody else. as it was totally mutilated and beyond its recognition.<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Additional<\/p>\n
Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the respondent, argued that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence, last seen theory and extra judicial confession, the<\/p>\n
appellant was rightly convicted.        There is a          complete chain of<\/p>\n
circumstances. Moreover, the diary which was recovered from the pant<\/p>\n
of dead-body of deceased was identified by the father of the deceased,<\/p>\n
connects the deceased with the dead-body. The recovery of the weapon of<\/p>\n
offence on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant connects the<\/p>\n
appellant with the crime.\n<\/p>\n
                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                               -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
            We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties<\/p>\n
and have perused the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
            The case of the prosecution solely based on circumstantial<\/p>\n
evidence. The first circumstance on which reliance was placed by the<\/p>\n
prosecution is that Santosh Mandal son of Lakhi Kant Mandal was brought<\/p>\n
to Punjab by Manoj Kumar and by Sita Ram Mandal from the state of<\/p>\n
Jharkhand for the purpose of doing labour. In this case, Lakhi Kant Mandal<\/p>\n
father of the deceased was examined by the prosecution as PW-8. As per<\/p>\n
statement of Lakhi Kant Mandal, Santosh Kumar Mandal was his son and<\/p>\n
Sita Ram Mandal and Dalip Mandal are brothers of Manoj Kumar appellant.<\/p>\n
It was further stated by PW-8 Lakhi Kant Mandal that his son Santosh<\/p>\n
Mandal was brought by Manoj Kumar appellant and his brother Sita Ram<\/p>\n
Mandal. The diary which was recovered from the pant of dead-body was<\/p>\n
identified by him on the basis of handwriting of deceased Santosh Mandal.<\/p>\n
The second circumstance is that the deceased was last seen in the compnay<\/p>\n
of appellant. In this regard, PW-3 Jaswinder Singh stated that at the time of<\/p>\n
sowing    and harvesting of the crop, the labour from Bihar used to be<\/p>\n
employed by him and in the year 2003, Sita Ram Mandal, Manoj Kumar and<\/p>\n
Santosh Mandal were employed by him as labourers. They were residing in<\/p>\n
his house. It was stated by Jaswinder Singh that Sita Ram, Manoj Kumar<\/p>\n
(appellant) and Santosh Mandal went to Bihar but when came back, they<\/p>\n
were two i.e. Sita Ram and Manoj Kumar but Santosh Mandal was not with<\/p>\n
them.\n<\/p>\n
            The next circumstance on which the prosecution has placed<\/p>\n
reliance is that   an extra-judicial confession made by accused before
\n                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                               -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
Jaswinder Singh    (PW3) regarding the mode and manner in which the<\/p>\n
murder of Santosh Mandal was committed. Jaswinder Singh PW-3 before<\/p>\n
whom the extra-judicial confession was made, has no ill-will, grudge or<\/p>\n
prejudice against Manoj Kumar appellant to depose against him falsely.<\/p>\n
The extra-judicial confession made before Jaswinder Singh cannot be said<\/p>\n
that the said confession was not voluntary. It has specifically been stated<\/p>\n
by Jaswinder Singh that the deceased and accused ( two brothers) were<\/p>\n
employed by him as labourers and they were also residing in his house and<\/p>\n
since they belong to the State of Jharkhand, they did not have any relative<\/p>\n
or close person in the State of Punjab with whom they could think to make a<\/p>\n
disclosure statement, therefore, he was chosen as a person before whom,<\/p>\n
the appellant could make the disclosure statement.         In the disclosure<\/p>\n
statement before Jaswinder Singh, it was clearly mentioned that the<\/p>\n
appellant and his brother Sita Ram       had buried the dead-body in the<\/p>\n
sugarcane fields of Sukhchain Singh. Moreover, there is nothing on the<\/p>\n
record to show that there was any pressure or any influence of anybody to<\/p>\n
make extra-judicial confession with regard to commission of murder of<\/p>\n
Santosh Mandal before Jaswinder Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            The next circumstance is that on 30.6.2003 ASI Bakshi Ram<\/p>\n
interrogated appellant Manoj Kumar when he was in police custody. He<\/p>\n
made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed a ‘Datar’<\/p>\n
in the fields of Sukhchain Singh by burying the same near the tube-well and<\/p>\n
the recovery of the Datar was effected on the basis of disclosure statement.<\/p>\n
            Hon’ble the Apex Court in several cases has expounded<\/p>\n
principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence. In the case of
\n                Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                               -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
C.Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh,<\/a> 1996(3) RCR<\/p>\n
(Crl.) 793 it has been observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
                   ” In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled<\/p>\n
                   law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion<\/p>\n
                   of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such<\/p>\n
                   circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover,<\/p>\n
                   all the circumstances should be complete and there<\/p>\n
                   should be no gap left in the claim of evidence. Further,<\/p>\n
                   the proved circumstances must be consistent only with<\/p>\n
                   the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally<\/p>\n
                   inconsistent with his innocene….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Further, in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others<\/a><\/p>\n
1990 (2) RCR (Crl.) 26, it was laid down that when a case rests upon<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:<\/p>\n
     1. the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be<\/p>\n
       drawn, must be cogently and firmly established:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     2. those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly<\/p>\n
       pointing towards guilt of the accused;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so<\/p>\n
       complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all<\/p>\n
       human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none<\/p>\n
       else; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     4. the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be<\/p>\n
       complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than<\/p>\n
       that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be
\n                 Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
       consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent<\/p>\n
       with his innocence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Keeping in view the facts mentioned above, the present case is<\/p>\n
based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances from which the<\/p>\n
conclusion of the guilt is drawn has been fully proved and are conclusive in<\/p>\n
nature. Moreover, all the circumstances are complete and there is no gap<\/p>\n
left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances are consistent with<\/p>\n
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with the<\/p>\n
innocence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The principle of law is well settled that where the evidence is of<\/p>\n
circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt<\/p>\n
is to be drawn, should be fully established in the first circumstances, and the<\/p>\n
facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the<\/p>\n
guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be conclusive in nature and<\/p>\n
they should be such as to exclude hypothesis than the one proposed to be<\/p>\n
proved. There must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any<\/p>\n
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the<\/p>\n
accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the<\/p>\n
act must have been done by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
             The circumstances in the present case, on which the reliance<\/p>\n
has been placed by the prosecution are that on the basis of diary found from<\/p>\n
the pant of the deceased was identified by Lakhi Kant Mandal (PW-8) father<\/p>\n
of the deceased and on the basis of last seen. Both the accused came to<\/p>\n
Jaswinder Singh PW-3 and informed him him regarding their plan to go to<\/p>\n
Bihar along with Santosh Mandal but he did not come back. Further-more,
\n                 Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004
\n                                -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
the recovery of weapon was made on the basis of disclosure statement<\/p>\n
made by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
              For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has fully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and the<\/p>\n
learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. Thus,<\/p>\n
we do not find any legal infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order<\/p>\n
of sentence dated 1.11.2004 and 4.11.2004 passed by Sessions Judge,<\/p>\n
Kapurthala.\n<\/p>\n
              Hence, this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
\n                                               JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                        (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
\n                                               JUDGE
\nJanuary 16, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
raghav\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009 Criminal Appeal No. 958 DB of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Appeal No.958 DB of 2004 Date of Decision: 16.1.2009. Manoj Kumar …….Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab ……Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-11T22:48:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-11T22:48:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3656,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-11T22:48:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-11T22:48:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-11T22:48:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009"},"wordCount":3656,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009","name":"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-11T22:48:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoj-kumar-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-16-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoj Kumar vs The State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=162439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}