Holding

The conviction of Harbans Lal is set aside because the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt applies.

Summary

Harbans Lal was convicted for the murder of his wife Punni Devi, who died from burns, along with his two sons. The trial court sentenced all three to life imprisonment; the High Court acquitted the sons but upheld the husband's conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the prosecution's case, which rested mainly on the testimony of two eye‑witnesses who claimed to have seen the murder through a window. The Court found the witnesses' statements implausible, their presence in the house doubtful, and noted their failure to report the incident promptly, rendering their testimony unreliable. No other substantive evidence linked the appellant to the crime, and the defence's ten witnesses were ignored. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and set aside his conviction and sentence, discharging his bail bond.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The reliability and admissibility of the eye‑witness testimony of PW‑11 and PW‑12.
Whether the benefit of doubt should be granted when the evidence against the accused is unreliable.

Legislation cited

Subjects

murderburningbenefit of doubteye‑witness testimonycircumstantial evidenceconviction overturnedIPC 302IPC 34Evidence ActCrPC 313appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

A HARBANS LAL
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

JANUARY 23, 1996

B [DR. A.S. ANAND AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] I
Penal Code, 1860 : •
S. 302/34-Murder of wife by husba11d a11d two so11s--Tria/. Court
convicting all the three accused and sente11ci11g them to life impriso11-
c me11t-High Court givi11g be11efit of doubt to the two sons but mai11taini11g the
co11victio11 a11d se11te11ce of the husba11d of the decease~n appeal held
c011duct of eye-witnesses belies the possibility of their prese11ce a11d various
i11finnities in their evidence re11ders it unsafe to rely upo11 their testimony-Ap-
preciatio11 of evide11ce 11ot p!vper-Benefit of doubt to other two accused not
D give11 to the appellant-accused-Same yardstick should have bee11 ap-
plied-He11ce miscaniage of justic,,......Prosecution 11ot proved case against '
appellant-Accused beyond reaso11able doubt-He11ce e11titled to benefit of
doubt-Co11viction a11d sentellce of appellant-Accused set asid~Evidence
Act-Appreciatio,, of Evidence.
E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
38 of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.82 of the Punjab & ,
Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 449-DB of 1982. '·
F
K. Madhavan (NC) for the Appellant.

Ranbir Yadav for R.S. Sud for Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G The appellant along with his two sons Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram
were sent up for trial in connection with the murder of Punni Devi-wife of .;;
the appellant mother of Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram on the night inter-
vening 16/17 October, 1981. The trial court convicted all the three accused
for offences under Section 302/34 !PC vide its judgment dated 15.6.1982
H and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. On appeal, the High
870
\
\
HARBANS LAL v. STATE 871

Court gave benefit of doubt to Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram and acquitted A
them. The conviction and sentence of the appellant was, however, main-
tained.

By special leave, the appellant has called in question his conviction
and sentence.
B
~ We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the
record.

That Punni Devi died as a result of burn injuries on the night
intervening October 16/17, 1981 in the house of her husband Harbans Lal C
appellant, is not in dispute. The question, however, is whether the prosecu-
tion has been able to establish that the appellant committed the crime.

The prosecution examined PW-11 Kartar Singh and PW-12 Kamai!
Singh - grandson of PW-11, as the two witnesses of the occurrence. The
High Court while considering the submissions relating to the evidence of D
Kartar Singh PW-11 found that the criticism of his evidence "was not
without force" but went on to say that even if the evidence of that witness
was 'ignored', the fact remains that the deceased was found dead in her
own house where she was residing with the appellant and that it was not a
case of suicide and therefore the appellant must have burnt her to death.
Thus, the High Court appears to have relied upon that circumstance to
E
uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

With a view to satisfy our judicial conscious, we have perused the
evidence of PW-11 Kartar Singh and PW-12 Karnail Singh but their
evidence does not inspire confidence. PW-11 Kartar Singh deposed that F
on the night in question, while passing through the house of Harbans Lal
he peeped through a window of the house and saw that the appellant had
kepi his foot on the neck of Punni Devi deceased while Pawan Kumar had
caught hold of her arms and Dial Ram of her legs. Why PW 11 had to peep
through the window is not explained by him, particularly when it is not his G
case that the deceased was shouting or raising an alarm ? Kamai! Singh
PW-12 deposed that after PW-11 had peeped through the window, he did
likewise and noticed that Pawan Kumar was sprinkling kerosene oil on the
body of Punni Devi while Harbans Lal had put his foot on her abdomen,
and he (i.e. Harbans Lal) set her on fire with a match stick. Thus, these
two witnesses deposed about two stages of the occurrence they had seen H
(
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A through the window. Their evidence appears to be rather artificial. These :., I
two witnesses appear to us to be got up witnesses. They saw a gruesome
murder being committed with their own eyes and yet for reasons best
known to them, they did not raise any alarm but went their way and did
not disclose about the occurrence to anyone, not only that evening but even
B till the third day after the occurrence. Their conduct was thus, most
unnatural. This creates a serious doubt about their credit worthiness.
From the evidence of DW-4 and DW- 5 it transpires that PW-11 did not
•
even have a ration card in that ward and even his name was not entered
on the voters list of that area. His presence in the area is therefore,
doubtful. The evidence of both these witnesses, PW-11 and PW-12, has not
C impressed us. The High Court also does not appear to have found them
reliable witnesses. Their conduct belies the possibility of their presence and
various infirmities in their evidence, renders it unsafe to rely upon their
testimony. The only other piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution
is the recovery of the dead body with extensive burns from the house of
D the appellant. That circumstance, however, is not sufficient to hold the
appellant guilt. It is not conclusive in nature and is not compatihle only
· with the guilt of the appellant and wholly incompatible with his innocence.
This circumstance can only create suspicion about the complicity of the
appellant but suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The
High Court, after having dis-believed PW-11 and given benefit of doubt to
E Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram by accepting their statements that they were
living separately fell in error in convicting the appellant only on the
suppositi011 that the appellant was living with the deceased, ignoring the
statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect
that on account of his strained relations with his wife, he used to sleep at
F the shop and not in the house and that after he learnt about the death of
his wife at about 10/11 A.M. on 17th October, 1981, he sent information to
the relations of his wife. The prosecution did not lead any evidence to show
that the appellant was living in the house and not in the :;hop. Since, the
High Court accepted the statements of Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were living separately and
G gave them the benefit of doubt, we are at loss to understand as to why the
same yardstick was not applied while appreciating the evidence in so far
as the appellant is conce•ned.

There is yet another serious lacuna in the prosecution case. The
H failure of the High Court to notice, let alone consider and discuss, the
\
I
I

HARBANS LAL v. STATE 873

evidence of ten defence witnesses, besides the court witness Shri G.S. A
Bhullar, S.S.P., was highly improper and in our opinion, the failure to
appreciate the defence evidence had resulted in mis-carriage of justice and
the appellant has been seriously prejudiced.

The evidence on the record in our opinion fails to connect the
appellant with the crime and the prosecution has not proved the case B
against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled
to the benefit of the doubt. The conviction of the appellant under the
circumstances cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and
set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The appellant is on
bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. C
G.N. Appeal allowed.

"'