CHANDER PAL versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 07-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDER PAL 
v. 
THE STATE OF HARYANh 
FEBRUARY 7, 2002 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Section 302 rlw 34-Murder-Prosecution of five accused-Non-
.. 
C examination of independent witnesses .Contradictory statement of PWs· -
Failure to hold identification parade-Trial court convicted the accused 
appellants and acquitted other accused on the same set of evidence-
Conviction confirmed by High Court- --On appeal-Held, conviction 
unjustified-Benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants-accused, 
D since prosecution fai/eC: to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 
Appellants along with three others were prosecuted for committing 
murder. As per the prosecution, murder incident was the result of an incident 
of altercation between the deceased and the accused. PW-5, a neighbour and 
friend of the deceased and PW-6, a colleague of deceased's father were the 
E witnesses to the altercation incident. The murder incident was witnessed by 
PW-I, brother of the deceased and PW-2. One 'M', another eyewitness to the 
murder who had also played important role in investigation of the case and 
One 'S' who had taken the deceased to the hospital, were not examined. No 
identification parade was held. Defence suggested that since father of the 
deceased was a police official, investigating agency had gone out of the way to 
F make out a cast against the appellants and other accused to solve an undetected 
crime. It also suggested to PW-I that he could not have identified Al because 
he was not known to him, and that he had not mentioned his particulars in 
the complaint while in respect of other accused he had done so. To the 
suggestion, PW-1 had replied that he had seen Al in one of his visits to the 
G factory where Al was employed. 
H 
Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-Al u/s 302 IPC and appellant-
A2 u/s 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, and acquitted the rest of the accused partly 
relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. On appeal High Court confirmed the 
judgment of the trial court. 
872 
.. 
> 
• 
CHANDER PAL v. ST A TE OF HAR Y ANA 
873 
In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that in view of absence of A 
explanation with regard to material contradictions in the prosecution case 
and with regard to failure in examination of'S' and 'M' prosecution case was 
unacceptable; and that the case of the appellants could not have been 
distinguished from those of the other accused on the set of the same evidence 
and that the Sessions Court wrongly gave benefit to the prosecution. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. Prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt 
that these appellants were the assailants of deceased and were responsible 
for murder of the deceased. (887-E] 
2. On the parity of the reasoning adopted by the Sessions Judge, the 
case of the appellants could not have been distinguished from those of the 
acquitted accused persons. It is this fundamental error in the Judgment of 
Sessions Judge which has denied the appellants herein the benefit of doubt 
which should have been made available to the appellants. [887-B] 
3. With all these contradictions and strong doubts with reference to 
certain facts, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 cannot be relied on, in the 
background of the suggestion made by the defence that the murder in question 
was a blind one without any witness and only because the deceased was the 
B 
c 
D 
son of a former police officia~, the investigating officer has implicated these E 
accused persons with extraordinary zeal of obtaining a conviction. [884-GI 
4. ln the background of the interestedness of PW-I, and the material 
contradiction in his evidence the suggestion of his not knowing A-1 becomes 
relevant. Therefore, evidence of PW-1 cannot be relied on. The explanation 
given by PW-1 to the suggestion made in this regard to him by the defence F 
that he used to visit the Kelvinator factory where A-I was working for the 
purpose of procuring business from the factory and during those visits he 
had seen A-I, hence he was able to identify the accused is not satisfactory. 
The visit of PW-1 to Kelvinator factory on previous occasions is not 
corroborated by any other evidence; be it oral or documentary. It had also come G 
in evidence that the said factory engages about 5,000 to 7,000 workmen and 
this witness had not given any special reason why he specifically noticed A-
l so as to remember his name and identify him at the time of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.