The Supreme Court of India has acquitted three family members convicted of murder, setting aside a High Court judgment. The apex court, in a judgment delivered by a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, granted the benefit of doubt to the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish their identity as the assailants through reliable ocular or circumstantial evidence. The court heavily scrutinized the testimony of “chance witnesses” and noted critical lapses in the investigation, including the failure to conduct an identification parade and the lack of forensic evidence connecting the recovered weapons to the crime.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to June 3, 2000, when Pushpendra Singh was murdered. According to the prosecution, the incident was preceded by an altercation on the morning of the murder. Appellant No. 1, Rajendra Singh, and his son, Appellant No. 2, Bhupender Singh, had a dispute with Diler Singh (the deceased’s father) over digging his field to lay a plinth.
Later that day, at approximately 1:30 p.m., the prosecution alleged that Diler Singh and his brother-in-law, Papender Singh, saw the three appellants—Rajendra Singh, Bhupender Singh, and their son-in-law, Ranjeet Singh (Appellant No. 3)—arrive on a motorcycle at the Jogither diversion where the deceased, Pushpendra Singh, was sitting. The appellants, allegedly armed with swords and a ‘kanta’ (a sharp-edged weapon), exhorted the deceased, who then fled.
The prosecution’s narrative described a chase across fields, with Diler Singh, Papender Singh, and others like Jwala Singh running behind the accused. The deceased sought refuge in the house of one Mukhtyar Singh, but the appellants followed him inside and inflicted fatal blows with their weapons. An FIR was lodged by Diler Singh the same day under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, but the High Court of Uttaranchal overturned this decision, convicting them and sentencing them to life imprisonment.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, senior advocates appearing for the appellants argued that their clients were falsely implicated. They contended that there was no reliable evidence to establish the identity of the assailants, highlighted major contradictions in witness statements, and asserted that the discovery of the weapons of crime was false and irrelevant in proving their clients’ involvement.
The counsel for the State of Uttarakhand countered these submissions, arguing that the conviction was sound. The State maintained that witnesses had seen the accused chasing the deceased and that Amarjeet Kaur (PW-7), the lady of the house where the murder occurred, had witnessed the assault. The prosecution pointed to the recovery of blood-stained clothes from PW-7 and the discovery of the murder weapons based on the appellants’ disclosures as conclusive proof of their guilt.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court framed the primary issue as whether the appellants were the actual persons who chased and killed the deceased. The bench conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence, particularly the witness testimonies.
On Eyewitness Testimony:
The court placed significant reliance on the testimony of Amarjeet Kaur (PW-7), whom it described as an “independent witness” whose statement was “quite trustworthy and natural.” However, the court noted a critical aspect of her deposition: “She categorically stated that she did not know the name of the accused persons.” The judgment emphasized that PW-7 had only seen three unknown persons and could not disclose their identity. Furthermore, the court pointed out a major investigative failure: “No identification parade was carried out and PW-7 was not even asked to confirm whether the appellants were the accused persons.”
The testimonies of the deceased’s father, Diler Singh (PW-1), and Jwala Singh (PW-2) were found to be unreliable. The court found “striking contradictions” between the statements of PW-1 and PW-7. While PW-1 claimed to be an eyewitness who saw the appellants attacking his son, PW-7 stated that the deceased’s father and others arrived “about half an hour after the incident or after the accused had left the place.” This led the court to conclude that PW-1 was “not actually an eyewitness.”
The court also deemed PW-1 a “chance witness,” finding it “very unnatural” for him to be at the Jogither diversion, as it was not on his way home from the flour mill he claimed to have visited. The judgment stated, “The deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident is doubtful should be discarded, or at least be treated with great caution and close scrutiny.” Since the presence of PW-1 was doubtful, the court found that the presence of PW-2, who claimed to be following PW-1, also “stands belied.”
On Weapon Recovery and Confessions:
The court then examined the recovery of the weapons. It noted that the weapons were recovered from open spaces and, crucially, “no report of the forensic laboratory was produced to establish that the weapons so recovered were smeared with the blood of the deceased.”
The bench further elaborated on the law regarding disclosure statements under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Citing the landmark Privy Council decision in Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. vs. The King Emperor and the recent case of Manjunath and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, the court clarified the scope of Section 27. It held that only the part of a statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible, not the part that amounts to a confession of the crime itself. The court observed, “The information leading to the recovery of the weapons of crime is admissible, but not the information that the crime was actually committed by the said weapons.”
The Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the Trial Court’s order of acquittal. The bench observed that an appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court’s findings were “per se perverse or erroneous.”
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the identity of the appellants as the persons involved in the offence has not been established either by any ocular evidence or from the recovery of the weapons of crime,” the court stated.
Holding that it was “doubtful whether the offence has been committed by the appellants,” the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court, and acquitted Rajendra Singh, Bhupender Singh, and Ranjeet Singh. Their bail bonds were discharged.
