NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL
CRIMINAL LAW - II

Case Analysis
Of
Dhan Raj v. State of Haryana, (2014) 6 SCC 745

Submitted by: Drona Negi

1

Roll No.

: 2013BALLB94

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement.3
Material Facts.4
Issues..5
Relevant provisions6
Prosecutions argument...8
Defence argument.9
Judgement.10
Critical Analysis...11

Acknowledgement
I would like to begin with acknowledging my Criminal Law teacher Ms. Divya Salim who
gave me this opportunity to work on a project work, and guided me wherever needed.
Also, I would like to extend my gratitude to my batch mates and parents who have supported
me throughout in this Endeavour.

Material facts:
1. Vijaypal was a doctor serving at a dispensary in the village Khekri Jhat and living at
Jhajjar. On January 24th 1997, he left for the dispensary from his home, in his Maruti
car, which was unregistered.
2. Sukhbir Singh, who worked at the dispensary informed Vijaypals brother Harpal
Singh that his brothers dead body had been found in a nearby field and they found the
body in a side posture, bearing injury marks from a sharp edged weapon.
3. Harpal Singh filed an FIR, and a post mortem was conducted, and it was revealed by
the wife of the deceased that he had carried a watch and a briefcase with him.
4. Sanjay was arrested on the very next day, and the car of the deceased was recovered
from him, which was verified later using the chassis number. He also notified them
about the occurrence of this case, accepting his responsibility and named Dhanraj and
Badal as co accused.
5. He also revealed the existence of a kirpan and blood stained clothes, which were
recovered and Dhan Raj and Badal were arrested on February 4, 1997 and the
wristwatch and briefcase were recovered from them.

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant in this case, Dhan Raj and Badal can be convicted for murder
under Section 302 on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided?

Relevant provisions:
Sec 3021:
This is probably the most popular section in the IPC, dealing with punishment for murder.
The section reads as follows, Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or
[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Sec 342:
Acts done by persons in furtherance of a common intention:
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Sec 3923:
Punishment for robbery:
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on
the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen
years.

Sec 3954
Punishment for dacoity:
1 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560742/
2 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/37788/
3 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/329571/
4 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1119707/
6

Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Sec 3975
Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause grievous hurt:
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or
causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than
seven years.

5 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1865117/
7

Prosecutions argument:
The prosecution was mainly based on the statements provided by one of the co accused in the
case, named Sanjay who was arrested on the very next day of the murder, in possession of the
stolen car. In a confession made on 4th of February 1997, he named the appellants in this case,
Dhan Raj and Badal as being present with him during the commission of the crime. The
appellants were arrested on the same day, and the briefcase and wristwatch which was
reported as missing by the wife of the deceased was found in their possession. Badal was
arrested on a later date than Dhan Raj, so a different case was found against him. The
wristwatch was identified by the wife due to the initials V.P.S. present on them.
Also, the testimony of the deceased persons brother Suraj Singh was taken into account, who
said that Sanjay, along with the two appellants had visited them, asking for the deceased and
they had left when they found that the deceased was not present. Clearly, according to the
prosecution, this implies that they were the last persons who had associated with the
deceased, and alongwith the possession being recovered from their person, it can be
reasonably implied that they were the ones responsible for committing the murder.
Furthermore, Sanjay had given the police the location of the bloodstained clothes, along with
a Khukri and the wounds found on the body of the deceased matched the wounds which can
be inflicted by a khukri.
Thus keeping the evidence garnered till now in mind, the appellants must be charged with
Section 302(murder) read along with Sec 34(act done in furtherance of a common intention),
and since the stolen goods were found in possession of the accused, they should alsobe
charged under Section 392 read with section 395 and 397.

Defence argument:
The primary arguments, put forth by the defence, are with respect to the nature of the
evidence used to convict the appellants. They are of the view that the evidence used is
circumstantial at best and when someone is using circumstantial evidence to prosecute a
person, the evidence must be such that its inference can only lead to one possible conclusion.
If more than two results are possible, then the evidence cannot be used for a conviction.
In this case, it was contented by the defence that the appellants were only found to be in
possession of the stolen goods, and in actuality there was no hard evidence linking them to
the murder. Initially, Sanjay on whose statement the entire prosecution argument was based
had made a contradictory statement, saying that he had committed the murder and robbery
along with a certain Rohtas, though he had changed the statement on a later date.
Also, no footprints were found in the place where the body was found, so there was no
evidence of either of the appellants being present at the scene of the crime.
The fact that the watch which was recovered from Badal had the initials V.P.S. on it is no
conclusive evidence, as the watch was more than 25 years old, and of a common make and
furthermore, the deceaseds brother had not registered this fact in the FIR. The defence also
observed that it was highly unlikely that the appellants would commit a crime as heinous as
murder in order to possess a item of such low value as a briefcase and a watch.

Judgement
The trial court in this case, convicted both Sanjay and Dhan Raj for murder under Sec 302
real alongwith Sec 34 and robbery under Sec 392 read alongwith Sec 395 and Sec 397. The
other appellant in this case Badal was tried in a separate case, as he was arrested on a later
date. He was acquitted by the trial court of all charges.
Aggrieved by the decision, Dhan Raj decided to appeal to the high court of Punjab and
Haryana and on reconsidering the evidence, they upheld his conviction, but alongwith him
convicted Badal of all the charges under which he had been convicted.
Thus, Dhan Raj and Badal decided to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and the
honourable Supreme Court was of the view that since the evidence was circumstantial at best
and multiple inferences were possible by analysing the evidence, it cannot be conclusively
proven by the prosecution that Dhan Raj and Badal are guilty of murder. Hence the Supreme
Court acquitted them, by overturning the decision of the High Court.

10

Critical Analysis
A layman would be of the view that in this case injustice has been done, and murderers have
been allowed to walk free. But, in my opinion, the more important question to be considered
here is whether rule of law has keeping in mind the proper procedure has been followed or
not. Clearly, even though on the face of it, the appellants appeared to be guilty, the evidence
linking them to the crime was circumstantial at best. Since various inferences could have
been drawn from the evidence, and there was no conclusive evidence linking them to the
crime, the only correct decision that the court could have delivered was acquitting them.

11