HARBEER SINGH versus SHEESHPAL & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 20-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016) 8 S.C.R. 380 
HARBEER SINGH 
v. 
SHEESHPAL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1624-1625of2013) 
OCTOBER 20, 2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - s. 161 and Explanation 
to s.162 - Murder - On accou/lf of previous enmity - Four accused 
- Chance Witnesses - Interested Witnesses - Prosecution case, that 
while driving Jeep, accused persons with intention to kill the victim 
hit him and dragged him from one place to another - Victim died on 
the spot - There was delay in recording the statement of witnesses -
Trial court convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to 
life imprisonment - High Court however, acquitted all the accused 
persons - On appeal, held: Prosecution was not able to prove its 
case beyond all reasonable doubt since the eye-witnesses were 
interested in the complainant and hence unreliable, while most other 
prosecution witnesses ll'ere chance witnesses - Evidence of the eye 
witnesses both as to fact of the alleged conspiracy and murder of 
the deceased, did not inspire confidence; there were inconsistencies 
and improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses 
made over their statements recorded - Further, there was 
unexplained delay in recording the evidence of certain prosecution 
witnesses as well as many important and basic lapses in investigation 
that made the prosecution case suspicious - No ground to interfere 
with the judgment passed by High Court - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss. 302, 149, I 20B. 
Constitution of India -Art.136 - Scope of - Interference in 
criminal appeal against acquittal - Supreme Court not to interfere 
with the judgment of the High Court unless High Court has acted 
perverse~y or improperly. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution 
of India, Supreme Court will not interfere with the judgment of 
the High Court unless the same is clearly unreasonable or 
31!0 
HARBEER SINGH v. SHEESHPAL & ORS. 
381 
perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. The mere fact 
A 
that another view could also have been taken on the evidence on 
record is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal.[Para 
10][388-C-D) 
Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash 
(1972) 1 SCC 249 : 1972 (2) SCR 765; State of U.P. v. 
Harihar Bux Singh & Anr. (1975) 3 SCC 167; State of 
Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar & Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 1 
: 1979 (3) SCR 1; State of U.P. v. Gopi & Ors. (1980) 
Supp. SCC 160; State of Karnataka v. Amajappa & 
Ors. (2003) 9 SCC 468; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bmme 
@ Baijnath & Ors. (2009) 4 SCC 271; State of U.P. v. 
Gurucharan & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 721 : 2010 (2) 
SCR 1110; State of Haryana v. Shakuntla & Ors. (2012) 
5 SCC 171 : 2012 (5) SCR 276; Hamza v. 
Muhammadkutty @ Mani & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 150 : 
2013 (10) SCR 867 - referred to. 
2. PW3 and PW9 were not witnesses to the alleged 
conspiracy between the accused persons since not only the 
details of the conversation given by these two prosecution 
witnesses were different but also their presence at the alleged 
spot at the relevant time seems unnatural. Besides, it appears 
that there have been improvements in the statements of PW3. 
The Explanation to s.162 Cr.P.C. provides that an omission to 
state a fact or circumstance in the statement recorded by a 
police officer u/s.161 Cr.P.C., may amount to contradiction if 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant 
having regard to the context in which such omission occurs 
and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the 
particular context shall be a question of fact. Thus, while it is 
true that every improvement is not fatal to the prosecution 
case, in cases where an improvement creates a serious doubt 
about the truthfulness or credibility of a witness, the defence may 
G 
take advantage of the same. The High Court had rightly 
considered these omissions 11rc material omissions amounting 
to contradictions covered by the Explanation to s.162 Cr.P,C. 
[Para 15][389-F-H; 390-A, B-C] 
H 
382 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
Ashok Vishnu Davare v. State Of Maharashtra (2004) 
9 SCC 431; Radha Kumar v. State of B ihar (no11' 
Jharkhand) (2005) 10 SCC 216; Sunil Kumar 
Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) & Ors. v. State of 
Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657 : 2010 (15) SCR 
452; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 12 SCC 
473: 2013 (9) SCR 547 - referred to. 
3. In the prese
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.