Punjab and Haryana High Court Sentences Life Sentence to Three Army Officers in 1998 Murder Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted three former army officers and another for shooting dead a man in Haryana’s Sonepat in 1998.

While the court overturned the court’s decision to acquit the convicts, it also rejected the officers’ excuse defense. The Trial Court had accepted the Army records and officers’ statements stating that three convicts named Captain Anand along with Yudhvir Singh and Raj Kumar were present in Roorkee on the day of the crime.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur And Judge Sudeepti Sharma noted, “The report of the concerned doctor evidencing the autopsy report of the deceased concerned should be read along with the signed statement of disclosure effectively proven as done by the accused-defendants and also as a result thereof validated the recovery through the recovery note…, so that the above notes as well as the medical account and the report of the ballistic expert are mutually exclusive. It encourages an inference that there is a confirmation. As a result, any alibi claim that cannot be convincingly proven otherwise… for other reasons also remains inconclusive.“

The court found the accused guilty of committing offenses punishable under Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 302 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

According to the prosecutor, there had previously been discussions between Mahender Singh and Raj Kumar’s family during the panchayat elections, which resulted in bad faith between the parties.

After considering the allegations, the Court noted that the Court of First Instance had committed “gross perversion or absurdity in assessing the relevant evidence adduced.”

He took notice of Raj Kumar’s disclosure statement which led to the discovery of the “country-made weapon”.

Taking into account the testimony of eyewitnesses, the panel was of the opinion that the discovery of the gun was an “important corroborative link” even in a case relying on eyewitness testimony.

The court emphasized that the defense must show that the disclosure statement and any resulting retractions were false or fabricated by proving that the alleged discovery did not result directly from the defendant’s custody statement.

“In a case based on relevant evidence, the signed disclosure statement properly made by the defendant and the recovery notes prepared as a result gain serious evidentiary force when they do not contradict the principles, especially when they are complied with. The court stated that possible recoveries have been made.

The court accepted the objection to the acquittal decision, based on the defendant’s disclosure statement, the discovery of the weapon, the eyewitness statement and the connection of the chain of circumstantial evidence.

Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Addl. AG, Haryana.

Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate for Mr. Arnav Ghai, counsel for the petitioner (in CRR-563-2003).

Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate for Mr. KDSHooda, Advocate for the Defendants/Accused.

Click here to read/download the order