Punjab and Haryana High Court acquits Rohtak man in nephew’s 2014 murder case: ‘entitled to benefit of doubt’

A division bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta set aside the 2015 trial court conviction of Surajmal under sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 25 of the Arms Act. (Unsplash)

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday acquitted a Rohtak man convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his nephew in December 2014, saying that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances was incomplete.

“In our considered opinion, in the given facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Prosecution has been unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” the bench said.

Naveen was found shot dead in his room in Mayna village in Rohtak on the morning of December 2, 2014. Initially, his brother Paramjeet reported the murder by unknown persons, citing an old grudge. Later the same day, the victim’s mother, Saroj Bala, expressed suspicion against Surajmal, alleging a property dispute involving two shops and a house in Ekta Colony, Rohtak.

The prosecution relied on Saroj Bala’s claim that she had seen the accused leaving the house around midnight, a disclosure statement said to have led to the recovery of a country-made pistol and an empty cartridge, and an alleged motive linked to rent collection.

The bench found no material on record to substantiate the alleged property dispute. It noted material improvements in Saroj Bala’s testimony before the court compared to her initial police statement and described her explanation for the delay in naming the accused as unsupported.

The bench also expressed doubt over the recovery of the weapon, observing that “recovery of said weapon and cartridge itself is suspect in the given facts and circumstances”, particularly as the place of recovery was accessible to all.

Additionally, the bench noted that the deceased was involved in six to seven criminal cases, a factor that assumed significance when considered alongside the other circumstances.

Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on cases based on circumstantial evidence, the bench held that the circumstances did not form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. The bench allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered Surajmal to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.