Death Sentence Cannot Rest on Suspicion, However Gruesome the Crime; Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Man in Two-Year-Old Child’s Murder, Cites Unreliable Evidence, Failed DNA Identification and Serious Investigative Lapses
Case Name: State of Haryana v. Hem Raj (Murder Reference) and Hem Raj v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal)
Date of Judgment: 07.10.2026
Citation: MRC-2-2022 and CRA-D-250-2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harmeet Singh Deol
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the brutality of a murder cannot substitute the prosecution’s obligation to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in a case involving capital punishment. Where the identity of the deceased is not conclusively established, material witnesses do not support the prosecution, forensic evidence fails to connect the accused with the offence and crucial investigative deficiencies remain unexplained, conviction cannot be sustained merely on suspicion.
The Court further reiterated that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof. Identification of articles already recovered by the police, made by an accused while in police custody, cannot be treated as admissible confessional evidence contrary to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
Summary: The case arose from the discovery of the mutilated body of a child, approximately two-and-a-half years old, in agricultural fields in Hisar, Haryana, on 16.06.2018. Hem Raj was prosecuted for allegedly murdering the child, Siva, and causing the disappearance of evidence. The Sessions Court convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and awarded the death sentence for murder, leading to a murder reference before the High Court along with the convict’s appeal.
Upon reappreciation of the evidence, the High Court identified serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. The recovered body was severely decomposed and mutilated, and its identification as Siva could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. DNA profiling failed to yield a conclusive comparison with the blood sample of the child’s mother.
The Court further noticed material discrepancies between the Hindi and English versions of witness testimony. The child’s mother, whose statement under Section 164 CrPC had implicated Hem Raj, did not establish his guilt during trial. The prosecution also failed to have the recovered clothes identified by her as those worn by the child before his disappearance.
The Court rejected reliance on the accused’s identification of the child’s clothes while in police custody, observing that the articles had already been recovered and such identification could not constitute admissible evidence connecting him with the crime.
Referring to the principles governing burden of proof under Sections 101 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the Bench held that an accused cannot be required to explain circumstances merely because the prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to connect him with the offence.
The Court also highlighted deficiencies in the investigation, including the failure to satisfactorily explain the condition of the mutilated remains, and found that the Trial Court had failed to properly address material contradictions in the evidence.
Decision: The High Court allowed Hem Raj’s criminal appeal, set aside his convictions and sentences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and acquitted him of all charges by extending the benefit of doubt.
Consequently, the murder reference seeking confirmation of the death sentence was dismissed as infructuous. The Court directed Hem Raj’s immediate release upon furnishing a personal bond under Section 481 BNSS, without requiring any surety bond.