Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000476-000477 – 2013 |
| Diary Number | 5150/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on appellate interference and Sections 25–27 Evidence Act; reverses High Court conviction |
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law | Whether ocular evidence and weapon recoveries establish identity; whether High Court can disturb acquittal absent perverse trial‐court findings |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Three appellants were accused of murdering Pushpendra Singh by chasing and assaulting him with swords and a kanta on 03.06.2000; FIR lodged same day under IPC Section 302; appellants arrested in June 2000 and weapons recovered based on their disclosures; trial court acquitted, High Court convicted. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in criminal appeals |
| Overrules | High Court judgment in Govt. Appeal No. 347 of 2007 (State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors.) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Identification by chance witnesses must be critically examined; absence of an identification parade and witness uncertainty undermine ocular evidence.
- Statements in police custody under Sections 25–26 Evidence Act are inadmissible as confession; only the information leading to discovery under Section 27 may be admitted.
- Appellate courts cannot disturb an acquittal unless trial‐court findings are perverse; first appellate reversal without perversity is impermissible.
- Recovery of weapons alone, without forensic matching to the victim’s blood, fails to connect accused to the crime.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Ocular Evidence
- PW-7 (householder) saw three unknown assailants attack the deceased but could not identify them; no identification parade conducted.
- PW-1 (father) and PW-2 (bystander) were chance witnesses whose presence at scenes was doubtful and contradictory.
- Chance Witness Doctrine
- Depositions of chance witnesses must explain their presence; if doubtful, evidence must be treated with caution or discarded.
- Recovery Evidence under Sections 25–27 Evidence Act
- Sections 25–26 bar confessions to police; Section 27 permits only the portion of statement leading to discovery; information that weapons were used is excluded.
- Appellate Interference with Acquittal
- High Court’s reversal of acquittal is valid only if trial-court findings are perverse; no such perversity found, so acquittal must stand.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Alleged false implication; no reliable eyewitness identification.
- Only one eyewitness (PW-7) saw unknown attackers; no parade to identify appellants.
- Weapon recoveries do not establish identity or utilization in murder.
- High Court lacked basis to overturn trial‐court acquittal without perversity.
Respondent (State):
- Witnesses saw appellants chase and assault the deceased with swords and a kanta.
- PW-7’s blood-stained clothes corroborated by forensic report.
- Appellants led police to weapons’ location, indicating admissions of guilt.
- Conviction by High Court was justified on combined ocular and recovery evidence.
Factual Background
Three appellants—father, son, and son-in-law—were tried for the murder of Pushpendra Singh committed on 03.06.2000. The father of the deceased lodged an FIR under IPC Section 302 on the same day; investigation included panchanama, witness statements, site plan, and post-mortem. Appellants were arrested on 05.06.2000 and 07.06.2000, and swords and a kanta were recovered per their disclosures. The trial court acquitted them, but the High Court convicted each under Section 302 IPC. Appellants challenged this in the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 25 & 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: bar confessions made to police or by accused in custody unless in Magistrate’s presence.
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: exception permitting only the portion of accused’s statement leading to discovery of fact (e.g., weapon location), not admission of crime.
- Principle on appellate review: first appeal cannot disturb an acquittal unless trial court’s conclusions are perverse.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions