NDLI: Dinesh Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	394 201 and 34 392 ss.27 ss.302 106 and 165 Evidence Act 1872 IPC 101 364
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code,1860 – ss. 302, 364,392,394,201 and 34 – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 27,101,106 and 165 – The case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence i.e. the evidence of ‘last seen’ and the ‘discoveries’ made from the information given by the appellant – Appellant(accused) and one co-accused convicted by Trial Court for the murder of the deceased – Two separate appeals were filed before the High Court – During the pendency of the appeal, the co-accused passed away, thus, his appeal stood abated – The appeal of the present appellant was dismissed, thus conviction and sentence of the trial court was upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: In the present case, when there is no close proximity between circumstances of last seen together and the approximate time of death, the evidence of last seen becomes weak, such circumstances by itself cannot form the basis of guilt – Further, the evidence of recovery had already been disclosed by the co-accused by the time the present appellant was arrested and thus the relevant facts were already in the knowledge of the police – Thus, disclosure and discovery made thereafter cannot be read against the present appellant – There cannot be a “discovery” of an already discovered fact – As far as the recovery of ‘Parna’ and watch of the deceased from the disclosure statement made by appellant, this evidence in itself is not sufficient to fix guilt on the appellant – Prosecution failed to establish important links in this case – Rigor mortis was present in the body after 90 days remained unexplained – Prosecution did not explain – Defence did not question – Prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of trial court and High court set aside.Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 165 – Judge’s power to put questions or order production – Held: The duty of the presiding judge of a criminal trial is not to watch the proceedings as a spectator or a recording machine but he has to participate in the trial ‘by envincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain truth.’
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 493
Petitioner	Dinesh Kumar
Respondent	The State Of Haryana
SCR	[2023] 4 S.C.R. 220
Judgement Date	2023-05-04
Case Number	530

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Dinesh Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Murlidhar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Suresh &anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Baiju Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Madhuban Vs. State of U.p.

Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Jabir & Ors Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana

Dinesh Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Indrajit Das Vs. The State of Tripura

Murlidhar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Suresh &anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Baiju Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand

Madhuban Vs. State of U.p.

Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Jabir & Ors Vs. The State of Uttarakhand

Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana