A taxi driver hired for what seemed like a routine trip to Sonepat in 1998 never came home. Twenty-six years later, the Supreme Court has finally closed the chapter on his killing - upholding the conviction of one of the three men involved, while ruling that he cannot serve the sentence because he was a child when the crime happened.
Background of the Case
The case goes back to August 10, 1998. Hari Om, who drove an Ambassador taxi in Bhiwani, was hired by Dinesh Kumar and two others, Manoj and Mukesh Kumar, for a trip to Sonepat. He never returned. Days later, a decomposed body was found in a sugarcane field near the Yamuna embankment in village Jaunpur. His brother identified it through clothing and physical features, since the face was too damaged for direct recognition.
Police intercepted the three accused on August 15, 1998, allegedly while they were trying to sell off the same taxi. A tiffin carrier and the deceased's driving licence were later recovered from the field, based on information the accused gave police. The trial court convicted all three of murder and robbery in 2000, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld it in 2009.
But during the appeal, Dinesh Kumar produced a 2012 order from the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat, declaring he was a minor - just over seventeen and a half years old - on the day of the offence.
Court's Observations
A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi examined the evidence chain closely. The judges noted that while the "last seen" testimony from the deceased's brother could not stand alone, it was strongly backed by other facts.
The bench observed, the burden of proving a fact especially within a person's knowledge lies on that person, pointing out that the accused never explained how they came to possess the deceased's taxi within days of his disappearance.
The Court also addressed the weak medical evidence, where the post-mortem doctor could not determine the exact cause of death due to advanced decomposition. The judges reasoned that this gap did not break the chain of circumstances, given the recovery of the taxi, the licence, and the tiffin carrier.
On the juvenility question, the Court relied on earlier precedents holding that a person who was a minor at the time of the offence gets protection under juvenile law, even if tried as an adult later.
Decision
The Supreme Court affirmed Dinesh Kumar's conviction under Sections 302/34 and 392/34 IPC. However, it set aside the sentence of life imprisonment, ruling it could have no effect against him because of his juvenility. Since he had already spent more time in custody than the maximum permitted under juvenile law, and had been released years earlier by the Juvenile Justice Board, the Court held he need not surrender again.
His bail bonds were discharged, and the appeal was partly allowed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar vs. The State of Haryana
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2011
Judge: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Decision Date: August 12, 2026
-300x169.webp)
