Appeal against conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC in the murder of a child, resting on last-seen evidence, an extra-judicial confession and alleged motive. The court found the confession unreliable as it was absent from the remand application, the motive unproved, and the chain incomplete, and acquitted the appellants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision:-4.4.2025
Pawan and another … Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Satish K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J
| Name of the convict(s) |
Offences | Imprisonment | Fine | In default of payment of fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pawan | 302 r/w 34 IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.2,000/- | R.I for 6 months |
| Kumar | 201 r/w 34 IPC | Seven years | Rs.1,000/- | R.I for 2 months |
| 302 r/w 34 IPC | Life imprisonment | Rs.2,000/- | R.I for 6 months | |
| Satya Narain | ||||
| 201 r/w 34 IPC | Seven years | Rs.1,000/- | R.I for 2 months |
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 2 )
“I am a resident of Village Pathera, District Mahendergarh and I am an agriculturist. We are three brothers. Om Parkash is my elder brother and younger to him is Rohtash, who is also an agriculturist. Ashok son of Rohtash aged about 10-11 years was studying in Class 4th . On 1.11.2000 at about 11:00 A.M. Ashok went out after taking meal, but did not return back till night. We searched for him, but did not get any clue about his whereabouts. On 5.11.2000, I lodged a report regarding Ashok Kumar having gone missing at Police Station Mahendergarh vide DDR No.8 dated 5.11.2000. Today i.e. on 6.11.2000 Somdutt, Beldar, Pump House, Pathera came to the village and informed that a dead body of a child was seen floating in canal at Pathera Pump House. We went to the Pathera Pump House and saw a dead body of a child, which was found to be of my nephew Ashok Kumar. On 1.11.2000, my nephew Ashok Kumar was with Pawan Kumar. Upon collecting information, I came to know that Ashok Kumar had been killed by Pawan Kumar because of an old enmity and pending litigation and his dead body had been thrown in the canal. A criminal case was pending in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. After leaving Rakesh near the dead-body, I came to the village to telephonically inform the police station. I was waiting for you at Bus Stand Pathera, where you met me. Action be taken.”
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 3 )
of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded.
PW-1 Jaspal Singh, Photographer stated that on 6.11.2000, he had taken photographs of the dead body at Pump House, Village Pathera,
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
( 4 )
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M)
which was floating in water and proved the photographs as Exs.P-1 to P-4 and the negatives as Exs.P-5 to P-8.
PW-2 Dr. Vijaypal Khangwal, Lecturer Department of Forensic Medicine, P.B.DS, PGIMS, Rohtak, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ashok Kumar, described the injuries found on the dead body and proved the post mortem report as Ex.PC. He opined that the cause of death was head injury, which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW-3 Head Constable Suresh Chand, stated that on 6.11.2000 he was posted as MHC at Police Station Mahendergarh and that upon receipt of ruqa he recorded formal FIR Ex.PF/2. He further stated that he sent special reports through EHC Narender.
PW-4 EHC Narender tendered his affidavit Ex.PH in evidence, wherein he deposed that on 6.11.2000 MHC Suresh Chand had handed over special reports to him, which he delivered to the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahendergarh and also to the senior police officers.
PW-5 UGC Raj Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex.PJ in evidence, wherein he stated that on 6.11.2000 he was posted at Police Station Mahendergarh on general duty and had been deputed to get the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ashok Kumar conducted from P.B.DS, PGIMS, Rohtak and that he accordingly got the needful done.
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 5 )
PW-9 Sunita Devi stated that on 1.11.2000 at about 2-2:30 P.M. when she was returning from her parental Village Bahujhorli to her matrimonial home at Village Pathera, she saw Pawan Kumar and Ashok Kumar near Dhanunda Pump House going on a cycle towards the pump house and that while Pawan Kumar was pedalling the cycle, Ashok Kumar was sitting on the carrier (pillion seat) of the cycle. She stated that Ashok Kumar was wearing a shirt having white, mahroon and blue strips and a ‘ saleti’ (grey) coloured pants. She further stated that on 5.11.2000 she came to know that Ashok Kumar was missing since 1.11.2000 and that she had told the members of the Panchayat about having seen Ashok Kumar. She identified the clothes of the deceased, which were shown to her.
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
( 6 )
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M)
Singh interrogated Pawan Kumar in his presence, during the course of which he disclosed that he had concealed a ‘ danda ’ (stick) and a cycle in the old house situated in Village Pathera and had kept the same under fodder.
PW-11 Vir Parkash stated that he is Sarpanch of Village Pathera and that on 5.11.2000 a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was held to discuss the matter regarding disappearance of Ashok Kumar and at that time the Gram Panchayat was informed that Ashok Kumar had been seen by Sunita while going on a cycle with Pawan Kumar on 1.11.2000 towards Pump House Dhanoda and that thereafter he went to the house of Sunita and verified the said facts from her, who confirmed having seen Ashok Kumar on 1.11.2000.
PW-12 Laxmi Narain stated that on 15.11.2000 at about 9-9:30 A.M. when he alongwith Krishan was present in the ‘ baithak ’ (sitting area) of his house, then Pawan Kumar came there and confessed before him and Krishan Pal that on 1.11.2000 he had taken Ashok Kumar to the canal situated in the area of Dhanunda on cycle and that Satnarain, his brother-in-law was also accompanying him and that they killed Ashok by inflicting injuries to him with sticks and threw his dead body in the canal. He further stated that since Pawan Kumar requested him to produce him (Pawan Kumar) before the police, they started for the police station and met the police party on the way at bus stand, where he produced the accused before the police and narrated all the facts. He further stated that the police
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
( 7 )
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M)
took Pawan into custody and recorded his confession Ex.PO and was also interrogated at the bus stand itself.
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
( 8 )
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M)
disappearance of Ashok Kumar and in respect of which a panchayat was convened on the same day i.e. on 5.11.2000, where Sunita was also present and it was during panchayat that it surfaced that Sunita had seen Ashok Kumar being taken away by Pawan Kumar. He further stated that V.P. Singh, Sarpanch of the village went to the house of Sunita and verified the facts from her.
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 9 )
the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. Accused Pawan Kumar further pleaded that he has been falsely implicated on account of acrimonious relations with the complainant. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their defence.
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 10 )
the remand application dated 16.11.2000 whereas the police, while seeking police remand, would have placed all the incriminating evidence before the Court concerned in case the same had actually been collected. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged extra-judicial confession of accused Pawan Kumar before PW-12 Laxmi Narain and PW-13 Krishan Pal also does not inspire confidence inasmuch as even the said extra-judicial confession does not find any mention in the remand application made by the police before the Area Magistrate on 16.11.2000. It has been submitted that since it is a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, therefore, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have led convincing evidence as regards motive for commission of offence, but there is no evidence with regard to the alleged motive of previous enmity. Learned counsel thus submitted that under these circumstances the accused deserve to be acquitted.
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 11 )
upon post-mortem examination the doctor opined that the cause of death was the injuries inflicted to Ashok Kumar. PW-2 Dr. Vijaypal Khangwal, who had conducted post-mortem examination, had described injuries found on the dead body as under:
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
( 12 )
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M)
dissection, the underlying tissues were ecchymosed with infiltration of blood in pericranium.
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 13 )
under:
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
( 14 )
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M)
Hanumant case [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] :
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between may be' and must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
( 15 )
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M)
must be' and not merely may be' proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between may be proved' and must be or should be proved'. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except the one where the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused.”Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 16 )
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 17 )
seen Ashok Kumar in the company of Pawan Kumar. The said assertion regarding presence of Sunita in the panchayat is rather in contradiction with the stand of prosecution as none of the other eye-witnesses including PW-11 Vir Parkash, Sarpanch has stated regarding presence of Sunita in the panchayat. He, however, stated that upon coming to know that Sunita had seen Ashok Kumar, he (PW-11) went to the house of Sunita to verify the said fact. It also needs to be noticed that the aforesaid last seen evidence is only in respect of one accused i.e. Pawan Kumar and not Satya Narain. The value and reliability of the aforesaid “last seen” evidence has to be considered in context of the quality of other evidence led by the prosecution particularly when the “last seen” evidence does not find any mention in the remand application.
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 18 )
been made by the accused, then it remains absolutely unexplained as to why the police did not chose to refer to the same in the remand application particularly when the police at the time of seeking remand is required to convince the Court concerned regarding involvement of the accused and refer to all the evidence already collected against him so as to justify grant of police remand. The conspicuous absence of any reference to the alleged extra-judicial confession would certainly make the said extra-judicial confession unreliable. In any case, it is also well settled that an extra-judicial confession is otherwise also a very weak type of evidence. Under the given circumstances as noted above it will be highly unsafe to rely upon the same.
“……..While on this point it is pertinent to mention that in the remand application that P.W.10 filed on July 10, 1992 after producing the accused before the Magistrate concerned he did not disclose that they had made a confession before P.W.6. Form the impugned judgment we find that when this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the High Court by the appellant's counsel it observed that all details were not required to be given in that application. We are unable to share the above view of the High Court for if really such a confession was made before P.W.6 and told to P.W.10. it was expected that in praying for the remand of the accused, he (P.W.10) would refer the same, for that was the only material on which the prosecution could primarily rely in justification of such prayer. For the foregoing reasons we are unable to accept the claim of P.W.6 that the appellant and other accused made a confession of their guilt before him.”
982, wherein in somewhat identical circumstances the police claimed that the
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 19 )
accused had suffered extra-judicial confession, but had not mentioned this fact in the remand application, expressed that the alleged factum of extrajudicial confession would be rendered highly suspected. The relevant extract from the said judgment is reproduced herein-under:
“18. There is another very important circumstance, which goes to prove that no extra judicial confession was made. On 20.1.1995 accused Madan Lal and Rakesh Kumar were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, in this case, for the first time, after having been arrested on 19.1.1995. A request dated 20.1.1995, for the police remand of both these accused was made, but there was no mention, in the same that Anil Kumar, co-accused had made extra judicial confession, before Ravinder Pal Singh Khalsa involving him and his co-accused, in the commission of crime, though Surjit Chand, SHO had already recorded the statement of Ravinder Pal Singh Khalsa, in this regard, on 19.1.1995 The accused were remanded to police custody till 23.1.1995. When both the accused were again produced for further police remand, vide a written request dated 23.1.1995 for further police remand, again no mention was made therein, that Anil Kumar, accused, had made extra judicial confession before Ravinder Pal Singh Khalsa to the effect that he along with Madan Lal and Rakesh Kumar committed the murder of Joginder Singh. Not only this Anil Kumar, accused, was arrested in this case, on 20.5.1995, and he along with Rajan Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Daya Nand were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, with a written request, for Police remand. They were remanded to Police custody till 4.5.1995. However, no mention of the extra judicial confession, having been suffered by Anil Kumar, was made in this remand request too. Had the extra judicial confession, been made by Anil Kumar, before Ravinder Pal Singh Khalsa, a few days before 19.1.1995, that he along with his co-accused committed the murder of Joginder Singh, it being a very important, significant and material fact, would have certainly been mentioned, in the remand requests, referred to above. Non-mention of this fact, in the remand requests, clearly proved that no extra judicial confession, was made by Anil Kumar, accused,
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
( 20 )
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M)
before Ravinder Pal Singh Khalsa a few days before 19.1.1995, that he along with his co-accused committed the murder of Joginder Singh, but this piece of evidence was fabricated. Had any explanation been furnished, by the Investigating Officer, in that regard, the matter would have been considered, in the light of the same. In the absence of any explanation, the Court could not coin any of its own, to fit in with the case of the prosecution. In Surinder Kumar's case (supra), the extra judicial confession was allegedly made on 5.7.1992. An application for remand of the accused was moved on 10.7.1992 by PW-10. The accused was also produced before the Magistrate concerned, on that date. However, the factum was not disclosed, in the remand paper, that the accused had made extra judicial confession before PW-6. The lower Court, however, relied upon the said extra judicial confession. The matter was also brought to the notice of the High Court, in appeal, that since there was no mention of the judicial confession, in the remand request dated 10.7.1992, it could be safely held that no such extra judicial confession was made. However, the High Court did not accept this contention, and dismissed the appeal. In appeal before the Apex Court, the same very point was raised. The Apex Court held that non-mentioning of the factum, that the alleged extra judicial confession was made, by the accused before PW-6, on 5.7.1992, in the remand paper dated 10.7.1992, clearly proved that no extra judicial confession was made and as such, this circumstance was fabricated. The facts of the aforesaid authority, are identical to the facts of the present case. Thus, the observations made in Surinder Kumar's case (supra) by the Apex Court, are applicable to the facts of the present case with equal force. The trial Court did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter, by making reference to the remand requests, and, thus, erred in relying upon the alleged extra Judicial confession. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants, that no extra judicial confession was made by Anil Kumar before Ravinder Pal Singh Khalsa, being correct is accepted.”
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 21 )
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
CRA-D-400-DB-2005 (O&M) ( 22 )
circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused so as to hold them guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL ) JUDGE
4.4.2025 ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI ) Pankaj JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No
Pankaj Kakkar 2025.04.04 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a conviction for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence—last-seen, extra-judicial confession and alleged motive—formed a complete chain of incriminating circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hanumant v. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶14
AIR 1952 Supreme Court 343 · Who else cites this
Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶15
2025(1) RCR (Criminal) 12
Surinder Kumar Versus State of PunjabApplied¶20
1999 SCC(Cri) 33 · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar Versus State of PunjabApplied¶21
2008(1) RCR(Criminal) 982
Nusrat Parween vs. State of JharkhandRelied on¶23
2025(1)RCR(Criminal) 140
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Pawan Kumar
Satya Narain
State of Haryana
Gurvinder Singh Gill
Jasjit Singh Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court