Motive Alone, No Matter How Strong, Is Not Enough to Convict Without a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Man Convicted in Alleged Honour Killing After 23 Years

“Suspicion, However Strong, Cannot Take the Place of Proof”, - Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a landmark ruling allowing an appeal against conviction in a 23-year-old murder case based solely on circumstantial evidence. The Court, comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, emphatically held:

“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.”

The conviction under Section 302 IPC, based on the alleged motive of honour killing following a suspected relationship between the deceased and the appellant’s daughter, was set aside due to the absence of a conclusive evidentiary chain, and key prosecution witnesses turning hostile.

The case stems from an incident dated December 28, 2002, when a 10th-standard student named Ramesh was found dead, strangled with a belt around his neck, at his residence in Faridabad. The FIR, lodged by his uncle Bhola Singh, suspected the involvement of Gajinder alias Lambhu—father of a girl, Neetu—whom the deceased was allegedly in a relationship with.

The police claimed that Gajinder, along with co-accused Suraj and Nand Kishore, had caught Ramesh in a compromising position with Neetu and killed him. All three were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the co-accused but convicted Gajinder, sentencing him to life imprisonment in 2004.

The appeal, pending for over two decades, culminated in this exoneration.

“The Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Is Broken and Incomplete”

In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, the Court reiterated the five cardinal principles of circumstantial evidence laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra:

“There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.”

The High Court pointed out that: “The chain of circumstantial evidence is not so complete so as to establish beyond doubt that it is the accused-appellant alone who must have committed the offence.”

The case hinged on the alleged motive—that Gajinder was enraged by the affair—and on a diary and a letter recovered by police that referred to a romantic relationship between Ramesh and Neetu. However, the Court made it clear: “Even if the motive is believable, it is insufficient to affix the guilt of the accused.”

Key Witnesses Turn Hostile—Prosecution’s Case Collapses

Two crucial eyewitnesses—PW-4 Shiva and PW-5 Pawan Kumar—who allegedly saw the accused leaving the crime scene, turned hostile at trial. The Court remarked: “PW-4 and PW-5, both of whom were said to have seen the accused coming out of the jhuggi of the deceased, have since turned hostile.”

The Court further added that their testimony failed to support the prosecution’s narrative and broke the chain of circumstantial evidence. Without their support, the motive and recovery of the diary were the only pieces of evidence left.

“Motive Is Not a Substitute for Proof” — Strong Suspicion Cannot Be the Basis for Conviction

Relying on authoritative Supreme Court rulings such as Anjlus Dungdung v. State of Jharkhand and Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. State of Kerala, the Bench cautioned: “Motive alone, even if strong, is not enough. Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof.”

In reference to Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P. and Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri, the Court reaffirmed: “The presence of motive may be an important circumstance, but it cannot take the place of conclusive proof that the person concerned was the author of the crime.”

Absence of Corroborative Evidence and Forensic Gaps

While the diary was confirmed by FSL to be written by the deceased, and the letter (Ex. P-1) hinted at a strained love affair, the Court noted: “The diary and letter might show the existence of a relationship, but they do not prove involvement of the accused in the murder.”

Furthermore, the failure to examine Neetu, whose alleged presence at the scene was central to the motive, critically weakened the prosecution’s case. The Bench observed: “The investigating officer did not interrogate Neetu or get her medico-legally examined. This omission is fatal.”

After 23 years of trial, appeal, and suspended sentence, the High Court delivered a judgment of acquittal, ruling: “The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.”

Setting aside the conviction dated 01/03.06.2004, the Court held: “The impugned judgment... is set aside, and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.”

This judgment stands as a strong reaffirmation of the jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence and the inviolable standard of proof in criminal law. It warns against the dangers of speculative justice, particularly when guilt is presumed from motive alone.

“Even in cases driven by honour, the law demands nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

Date of Decision: May 27, 2025