Mere Presence at Scene Not Enough to Prove Guilt: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Man Convicted of Drowning Death

“No Eyewitness Account, No Proven Confession – Conviction Based on Weak Circumstantial Evidence Cannot Stand,” Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling on the law of circumstantial evidence, acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for alleged murder by drowning. The Division Bench comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi overturned the conviction of Naresh, who had been held guilty under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, in 2004, for allegedly killing Kashmir Singh by pushing him into a canal. The Court found that there was no direct evidence against the appellant and the circumstantial links were wholly insufficient to establish guilt.

The case originated from FIR No. 245 registered at Police Station Sadar, Tohana, initially investigated as a case of accidental drowning. According to the first Daily Diary Report (DDR) dated 27.12.2000 recorded at the instance of Desa Singh, the deceased Kashmir Singh had been distributing newspapers and fell into the canal due to fog while crossing a railway bridge. It was only three days later, on 30.12.2000, that the deceased’s father, Hardit Singh, lodged a complaint alleging that Naresh had murdered his son by pushing him into the canal.

During trial, the prosecution attempted to build a case based on two primary contentions: firstly, that the accused had been “last seen” near the canal shortly before the victim disappeared; and secondly, that Naresh had made an extra judicial confession to a village sarpanch named Suraj Bhan, which allegedly disclosed his motive and guilt.

However, the High Court found both pillars of the prosecution case legally unsustainable. The Court held that the testimonies of PW-10 Ram Kumar and PW-11 Dharam Singh, who merely stated that they had seen the accused Naresh standing near the canal and later leaving on a moped after a thud was heard, did not suffice to establish a chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime. The Court noted that mere presence at the spot, without any incriminating conduct or act, cannot justify a finding of guilt.

Critically, the Bench emphasised the failure of the prosecution to examine Suraj Bhan, the person before whom the accused had allegedly made a confession. The Court reiterated the well-established legal principle that extra judicial confessions are inherently weak pieces of evidence and require strong corroboration. The non-examination of Suraj Bhan rendered the alleged confession inadmissible and legally void.

On medical evidence, the Bench observed that the post-mortem report clearly stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning. The medical board found no external injuries on the body. Doctors PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 all unanimously affirmed that the cause of death was consistent with accidental drowning. The defence also led evidence to support this version. Defence witness DW-1 Balwant Singh testified to having seen the deceased accidentally slip into the canal, and DW-2 Partap Singh, a respected lambardar of the village, corroborated this account and stated that Naresh was being falsely implicated.

The High Court also highlighted the delay in lodging the FIR and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative. The initial DDR gave a clear version of accidental drowning, and no suspicion was raised until three days later. The Court remarked that such unexplained delay and the shift in allegations seriously affected the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

Concluding that there was a complete lack of evidence linking the accused to the crime, the Bench set aside the conviction and sentence. It held that the prosecution failed to establish any chain of circumstances to support the conviction under Section 302 IPC. The Court ruled:

“There is absolute dearth of evidence to connect the accused with the alleged death of Kashmir Singh. Apart from the fact that there is delay in lodging the FIR, even the evidence against the accused that he was seen standing near the canal from where the deceased suddenly disappeared would not connect him with the alleged murder. The extra judicial confession could not be proved as Suraj Bhan before whom the accused had allegedly confessed his guilt was never examined.”

The appeal was accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 02.03.2004 convicting and sentencing Naresh was set aside. He was acquitted of all charges. The Court directed that his bail and surety bonds be discharged, and the case property be destroyed in accordance with rules after the expiry of the limitation period for appeal.

Date of Decision: 23 May 2025