Death Sentence Rejected; Court Highlights Failures in Evidence Identification, Fabricated Disclosure, and Doubts Arising from Childline Records Naming Another Suspect
In a significant judgment delivered on October 7, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Division Bench) acquitted Hem Raj, who was earlier sentenced to death for the murder of a two-year-old child named Siva. The High Court set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded by the Trial Court, citing grave doubts about the identification of the deceased and substantial lapses in the prosecution's case.
The case originated from the discovery of a mutilated and decomposed child's body in the fields of Ram Bilas, Gaibipur village, Hisar district, Haryana, on June 16, 2018. The prosecution alleged that Hem Raj murdered the child Siva and attempted to conceal evidence. Despite the Trial Court convicting Hem Raj for murder under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and awarding the death penalty, the High Court found the evidence insufficient to uphold the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Key Findings by the High Court:
1. Identification of the Dead Body Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The child's body was found in a severely decomposed state, with only the lower half of the torso and limbs intact, and the skull without scalp. The mother, Suman, did not conclusively identify the child's clothes during trial, though she had previously made a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC implicating Hem Raj. The DNA testing failed to match the child's remains with the mother's blood sample due to degradation of biological material. The Court held that, while it was probable that the body was Siva's, the prosecution failed to establish identity beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Statements Under Section 164 CrPC Not Substantive Evidence
Suman's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which implicated Hem Raj, was contradicted by her testimony at trial where she turned hostile and absolved the accused. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that Section 164 statements are not substantive evidence but only corroborative or contradictory material. The conviction could not be founded solely on such statements.
3. Inadmissibility of Identification of Clothes by the Accused in Police Custody
The accused identified blood-stained clothes of the child while in police custody. However, the Court ruled such identification as inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, which bars confessions made in police custody unless in the presence of a Magistrate. Consequently, the memo and police testimony regarding identification lacked legal sanctity.
4. Fabricated Disclosure Statement and Failure to Establish Discovery of New Fact
The accused's alleged disclosure statement regarding the concealment of the murder weapon (a "Kassi" or hoe) was found to be a typed printout whose creation during the journey was unexplained, indicating fabrication. Additionally, the "discovery" of the crime scene and weapon was not a new fact, as the place of occurrence was already known. The Court applied the six-fold test for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and concluded that the disclosure statements and discovery did not meet the criteria for admissibility.
5. Doubts Arising from Childline Records Naming Another Individual "Mahabir"
A contemporaneous Childline record made on June 13, 2018, named another person, Mahabir, as the individual beating the child and mother, not Hem Raj. The prosecution failed to investigate whether Mahabir and Hem Raj were the same person or related, creating serious doubt about the identity of the real perpetrator. The Court gave greater weight to this written contemporaneous record than to subsequent oral testimony.
6. Contradictory and Unreliable Witness Testimony and Scientific Evidence
The prosecution's key witness, Sarpanch Arjun Dev, gave inconsistent statements regarding the events leading to the child's death. Scientific forensic evidence also contradicted claims of drowning and burial of the body. The postmortem report revealed no signs of animal bites on the lower portion of the body, undermining the theory that the body was buried and later disturbed by animals.
7. Burden of Proof Remains on Prosecution
The Court emphasized that the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt always lies on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused merely because the child resided with the accused before disappearance. The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.
8. Defective Examination of the Accused Under Section 313 CrPC
The Trial Court did not put specific incriminating circumstances separately to the accused as required by law, which was noted as a serious irregularity. Although the Court did not solely rely on this defect, it formed part of the overall assessment.
9. Credibility Given to Defence Witnesses Regarding Good Character
The Court acknowledged defence witnesses who testified about Hem Raj's affectionate behavior towards the child, rejecting the prosecution's theory of ill-treatment and persistent taunting.
Conclusion:
Given the above, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The various shortcomings in the investigation, contradictory evidence, inadmissible confessions, and the presence of a named alternate suspect "Mahabir" warranted acquittal. The death sentence confirmation reference was dismissed as infructuous, and Hem Raj was acquitted of all charges.
The Court directed the immediate release of Hem Raj on furnishing a personal bond without sureties and ordered the destruction of case property after six months, subject to any further appellate proceedings.
This judgment underscores the critical need for meticulous investigation, strict adherence to evidentiary rules, and caution in accepting confessions and identifications in police custody, especially in serious cases involving capital punishment.
Bottom Line:
Murder trial based on circumstantial evidence - Death sentence reference rejected and conviction set aside - Where dead body was not proved to be identifiable beyond reasonable doubt, clothes were not got identified from the mother, DNA comparison failed, statement under Section 164 CrPC was not substantive evidence and maker turned hostile in trial, disclosure statement appeared fabricated, identification of clothes by accused in police custody was inadmissible under Section 26 Evidence Act, and Childline record named another person "Mahabir" creating serious doubt - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 302, 201; Evidence Act Sections 6, 9, 26, 27, 53, 101, 106; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 164, 277, 313, 366, 374
State of Haryana v. Hem Raj, (Punjab And Haryana)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992818
