Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000085-000086 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 46882/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on requirement of overt acts and consistent Section 161 CrPC statements |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; appellate review of joint‐criminal‐enterprise liability |
| Questions of Law | Whether mere identification as the vehicle driver—absent evidence of overt acts and marred by omissions in initial police statements—can sustain a murder conviction under Section 319 CrPC summons. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The conviction of a non‐shooter must rest on consistent, corroborated evidence of overt participation. Omissions in a witness’s Section 161 CrPC statement regarding the accused’s role are fatal. Identification of a vehicle used in the offence, without proof of actual driving involvement or production of the vehicle in court, cannot alone establish guilt. On the totality of circumstances, peripheral involvement unaccompanied by direct evidence must lead to acquittal. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court applied the principle that convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt of active participation—not just presence—highlighted the importance of consistency between trial testimony and Section 161 statements, and noted the court’s power under Section 319 CrPC to summons based on incriminating material. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | None |
| Follows | Established Section 161 CrPC consistency jurisprudence |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that omissions in a witness’s Section 161 CrPC statement regarding the accused’s overt acts can be fatal to credibility.
- Clarifies that mere identification as the driver of a vehicle used in a crime, without evidence of active participation, cannot sustain a murder conviction.
- Affirms that vehicle recovery and ownership links must be specifically tied to the accused to implicate them.
- Highlights the necessity of producing and identifying the vehicle in court when it is central to the charge.
- Confirms that initial investigative findings excluding an accused—when unchallenged—weigh heavily against conviction on appeal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Merits Review: Despite procedural complexities, the Court examined the evidence afresh after acquittal by the High Court and conviction by the Trial Court.
- Witness Consistency: PW-7’s trial testimony included overt‐act allegations (dragging victim) absent from his Section 161 CrPC statement—a fatal omission. PW-10 had no recorded statement at the investigation stage.
- Investigation Record: DSP (DW-1) confirmed the appellant was not arrayed initially and deemed innocent in the police report.
- Vehicle Evidence: The Tata Mobile was seized but never produced or identified by eyewitnesses; no incriminating articles found linking the appellant.
- Mutual Enmity Context: The Court noted animosity between rival groups, raising reasonable doubt about framing.
- Application of Section 319 CrPC: Summons based on minimal material do not replace the requirement for proof of overt participation beyond reasonable doubt.
- Conclusion: In the absence of corroborated, consistent evidence of overt acts, the appellant’s acquittal was ordered.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- PW-7’s Section 161 statement omits any overt act by the appellant.
- No direct evidence or recovery ties the appellant to the vehicle or firearms.
- Initial investigation cleared the appellant of involvement.
- Vehicle was never identified or produced in court.
Respondent (State):
- PW-7 and PW-10 identified the appellant as the driver at trial.
- Summons under Section 319 CrPC based on witness material.
- Vehicle use is sufficient circumstantial proof of participation.
Factual Background
On 14 October 1999, two men were shot dead in Punjab by assailants who allegedly arrived in a blue Tata Mobile 207. The next day an FIR was registered. The appellant was later summoned under Section 319 CrPC as the driver. The Trial Court convicted him; the High Court acquitted. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the merits and acquitted the appellant due to lack of consistent, corroborated evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 161 CrPC: Importance of recording and comparing witness statements to ensure consistency; omissions undermine credibility.
- Section 319 CrPC: Court’s power to summon additional accused based on incriminating material—does not lower the standard of proof required for conviction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
None introduced; the judgment applies established principles on witness consistency and joint‐enterprise liability.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on Section 161 CrPC statement consistency and overt‐act requirement reaffirmed.