Site icon Legal Vidhiya

Dharmbir @Dharma vs. State of Haryana

Spread the love
CITATIONAppeal No. 1858 of 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENTApril 16, 2024
COURTSupreme Court of India
APPELLATEDharmbir @Dharma
RESPONDENTState of Haryana
BENCHB. R. Gavai, Aravind kumar


The case Dharambir@ Dharma vs. State of Haryana saw a significant turn of events. In this case, involved parties are Karambir (Deceased) was together with his brother Krishan Kumar (pw-5), Ravinder (pw-6), and two acquaintances (Mahendra and Suresh).On June,1998 at approximately 11:30 a.m. the accused Dharambir allegedly stabbed Karambir in the chest, resulting in his immediately death. The motive was suspected Dharmbir’s belief that Karambir has an illicit relationship with his wife. The case investigated by the Rohtak Singh(pw-11) Rohtak Singh received a phone call about the incident by the Ram kumar (pw-9) who was manager of prabhat cinema,  and arrive at the scene to record krishna kumar statement, leading to the FIR. Investigation included Inspecting the crime scene,sizing the knife, preparing the side plan, and recording witness statements. The autopsy by Dr.Hemant Singh(pw-1) revealed two evidence wounds, determining the death as shock and hemorrhage from the chest wound. appellant, who was convicted under section 302 of Indian penal code by a session judge and later by the High court, was acquitted by the Supreme Court. The decision was based on the lack of conclusion evidence presented by the prosecution. The appellant’s innocence has been upheld in a crucial legal battle that highlights the importance of fair trial and evidence based justice. 



  1. Are the statements of the witness consistent with each other and with other evidence present in the case? 
  2. How detailed and specific are the testimonies? Are there clear accounts of the incident? 
  3. Are there any contradictions or admissions that could undermine their statements? 


  1. Contradiction in witness testimonies regarding seating arrangements in the cinema hall. 
  2. Witness and the deceased were seated in the first row reserved for women, but the investigation officer found the deceased seated ahead of them. 
  3. The alleged extra judicial confession by the accused was deemed weak evidence, contradicted by witness statements. 
  4. Inconsistencies in witness accounts regarding blood stains on clothes raise doubts about their presence at the crime scene. 
  5. Two companions of the informant did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile witnesses. 
  6. The accused’s alleged confession before witnesses was contradiction by the witness, manager of prabhaat cinema, and the Investigation officer. 
  7. Absence of examination of a key witness like the gatekeeper raises concerns about withheld material evidence. 
  8. Inconsistencies in witness statements regarding the accused’s action post- incident raise question about the reliability of evidence. 
  9. Krishan kumar (pw-5), being closely related to the accused and the deceased, makes it unlikely for him to falsely implicate the accused. 


  1. The testimonies of krishan kumar (pw-5), Ram kumar (pw-8) are crucial for upholding the conviction of the appellant. 
  2. Ram kumar (pw-8), the ex sarpanch provided compelling evidence supporting the factum of extra- judicial confession made by the accused, corroborating krishan kumar’S testimony. 
  3. The judgments of the trial court and the high Court, with concurrent findings of facts, have no apparent infirmities leading to the dismissal of the appeal sought by the accused. 
  4. The state asserted that without the testimonies of krishan kumar (pw-5), and Ram kumar (pw-8), there was insufficient evidence to maintain the appellant’s convictions. 
  5. The natural and trustworthy nature of krishan kumar’s testimony as the deceased real brother was highlighted urging the Court to uphold the conviction. 


The judgment provided by the Supreme Court included a detailed analysis of the witness testimonies, medical evidence, and investigative procedures to reach its final decision on the culpability of the accused under Section 302 IPC. 

The conviction of the appellant by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The appellant is acquitted by giving him the benefits of doubt. The appeal is allowed and the bail bonds are discharged. 

The impugned judgment by the High court and trial court are quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of charge. 



The Court concluded that, it is evidence that the prosecution did not succeed in proving the guilt of the accused appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The appellant is entitled to be acquitted receiving benefit of doubt. 

Thus, the appeal is accepted and the judgment of both the trial court and the high Court quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. Since the appellant is on bail, there is no need for him to surrender and his bail bonds are discharge, any pending application are hereby disposed of.


This Article is written by Rachna Singh student of faculty of law, University of Delhi; Intern at legal vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Exit mobile version