Convictions and Death Sentences Set Aside; Court Grants Benefit of Doubt to Accused as Prosecution Fails to Establish Involvement Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In a landmark judgment dated August 26, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Division Bench of Justices Anoop Chitkara and Ramesh Chander Dimri) acquitted four accused - Arun, Phool Chand, Dukhan, and Ram Suhag - who were earlier convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of two minor sisters in Sonipat, Haryana. The court set aside the convictions and death sentences on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background:
The tragic case involved the rape and subsequent death of two minor sisters, aged 13 and 12, who were found dead in August 2021. Initially, their mother reported snakebite as the cause of death, but later alleged that the girls were raped and poisoned by the accused. The trial court convicted all four accused under various provisions including Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, 376DA (gang rape of minors), 302 (murder), and others, sentencing them to death and other punishments.
Key Findings of the High Court:
- 1. Contradictions in Complainant’s Statements: The victims' mother’s statements were contradictory and inconsistent. Her earliest complaint mentioned snakebite as cause of death, while a later written complaint implicated the accused. However, during trial, she turned hostile, denied the allegations, and refused to identify the accused. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC (recorded by a Magistrate) was found to have contradictions with her written complaint and trial testimony.
- 2. Hostile Witness Testimony: The mother and brothers of the victims were declared hostile witnesses. The court emphasized that hostile witness testimony is not wholly discredited but must be cautiously scrutinized and corroborated by other evidence, which was lacking here.
- 3. Scientific and Medical Evidence: The postmortem reports confirmed sexual assault and poisoning as cause of death, but DNA analysis did not link any accused to the victims' vaginal swabs or the cloth (parna) allegedly used to gag the victims. The forensic reports also indicated pendimethalin (herbicide) poisoning, not snakebite. The accused had no fresh injuries indicative of resistance by victims.
- 4. Disclosure Statements and Recovery: The accused made disclosure statements leading to recovery of incriminating material; however, the court found these statements fabricated and inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as the facts were already known to the police prior to disclosures. The recovery of the poison container and cloth was not credible as the items were already in police possession before accused led to them.
- 5. Failure to Identify Accused: The absence of any eyewitness testimony or reliable identification further weakened the prosecution's case.
- 6. Juvenility Plea: One accused, Ram Suhag, claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offence. Although the trial court rejected the plea based on dental and radiological age assessments, the High Court noted procedural delays and pending revision petitions on this issue.
Legal Principles Emphasized:
- - FIR and complaint statements under Section 154 CrPC are not substantive evidence but can be used for corroboration or contradiction.
- - Statements under Section 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence but may be used for corroboration or contradiction.
- - Disclosure statements leading to discovery of facts must relate distinctly to the fact discovered and must be voluntary to be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- - Hostile witnesses' testimony must be evaluated cautiously and can be relied upon if corroborated.
- - Benefit of doubt must be given if prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
After a meticulous analysis of the evidence and judicial precedents, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a legally admissible link between the accused and the crimes. The contradictions and lack of credible evidence created reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal.
Orders Passed:
- - Acquittal of all four accused on all charges.
- - Dismissal of the death sentence confirmation reference.
- - Directions issued for immediate release of accused on personal bonds without surety.
- - Directions for destruction of case property after six months, subject to any Supreme Court orders.
- - Closure of all related cases and applications.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principle that convictions in criminal cases must be based on solid, credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, ensuring that innocent persons are not wrongfully punished, even in the gravest cases.
Bottom Line:
Conviction and death sentences of four accused for rape and murder of two minor girls set aside due to lack of legally admissible evidence connecting the accused to the crimes - Benefit of doubt granted to the accused as the prosecution failed to establish their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 25, 26, 27, 80, 145; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 154, 164, 366(9), 374(2); Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Section 6; Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 328, 376DA, 506, 120B
State of Haryana v. Arun, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2968260
