Dharambir @ Dharma vs. State of Haryana (Supreme Court, 16 April 2024)
Dharambir @ Dharma was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Karambir in Bhiwani, Haryana, in June 1998. The prosecution alleged that Dharambir stabbed Karambir in a cinema hall, motivated by suspicion of an illicit relationship between Karambir and Dharambir’s wife. The trial court sentenced Dharambir to life imprisonment, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the conviction. Dharambir appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the reliability of the prosecution’s key witnesses and the overall fairness of the investigation and trial.
Key Evidence and Witnesses
The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the testimonies of two witnesses:
Krishan Kumar (PW-5): The deceased’s brother and the first informant, who claimed to have witnessed the stabbing.
Ram Kumar (PW-8): An ex-Sarpanch, who testified about an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Dharambir.
The prosecution also relied on medical evidence confirming the homicidal nature of Karambir’s death.
Issues Raised
The Supreme Court examined whether the testimonies of Krishan Kumar and Ram Kumar were credible and sufficient to uphold the conviction. The defense argued that:
Krishan Kumar’s testimony was inconsistent and contained improvements over earlier statements.
His account of the incident was improbable (e.g., lack of blood stains on him despite proximity, and the sequence of events inside the cinema hall).
The extra-judicial confession to Ram Kumar was unreliable and contradicted by other evidence.
The investigation was flawed, and the trial and high courts failed to properly assess the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and found several material discrepancies:
The sequence of events described by Krishan Kumar was unlikely, particularly his failure to notice the attack despite sitting next to the deceased, and the lack of blood stains on his person.
The extra-judicial confession was deemed a weak piece of evidence, especially since it was not corroborated by independent testimony and was contradicted by other witnesses.
The Court emphasized the principle that conviction must be based on evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution failed to meet this standard due to inconsistencies and doubts about the reliability of the main witnesses.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial and high courts, and acquitted Dharambir @ Dharma. The Court underscored that it is preferable for guilty persons to escape than for an innocent person to suffer wrongful conviction, especially after nearly 25 years of incarceration. The judgment reinforced the need for careful scrutiny of witness credibility and the dangers of relying on weak or inconsistent evidence to sustain a conviction.
Citation: Dharambir @ Dharma v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1858 of 2009, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 16 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments