JALPAT RAI & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 06-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 7 S.C.R. 1037 
JALPAT RAI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1736 of 2007) 
JULY 06, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw s. 149 and s. 148 - Fire shots 
resulting in death of three persons - Conviction of A-2 uls. 302 
and s. 27 of Arms Act, 1959 and acquittal of the other accused 
C 
(appellants) by trial court on the ground that the ocular 
testimony of prosecution witnesses was not reliable and was 
contradictory to the report of the ballistic expert - High Court 
held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was cogent, 
convincing and truthful and convicted appellants uls. 148 and D 
s. 302 r/w s. 149 - On appeal, held: Prosecution witnesses were 
closely related to the three deceased -
Their evidence 
showed their long standing rivalry with accused party - Thus, 
prosecution witnesses were not only much interested in the 
prosecution case but they were inimically disposed towards 
E 
the accused party as well - No other independent witness was 
examined although the incident occurred in a busy market 
area - At the place of occurrence, one wrist watch, one betcha 
and four pair of chappals were also found - There was no 
explanation at all by the prosecution with regard to these 
F 
articles -
These circumstances instead of lending any 
corroboration to the evidence of the three key witnesses, 
rather suggested that they had not come out with the true and 
complete disclosure of the incident -
The evidence of 
prosecution witnesses was to tl1e effect that there was 
G 
indiscriminate firing by the accused party at the complainant 
party - However, at the place of occurrence, only three 
empties were found - Moreover, at the scene of occurrence, 
there were no marks of indiscriminate firing - The ballistic 
1037 
H 
1038 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 7 S.C.R. 
A report recorded that the crime bullets and the cartridge cases 
were fired by the pistol recovered from A-2 only -
The 
testimony of prosecution witnesses about the role of 
appellants, thus, was not corroborated by medical and ballistic 
evidence - The deposition of prosecution witnesses suffered 
B from significant improvements and omissions as well -
Serious infirmities in the evidence of the eye-witnesses 
indicated that their evidence was not wholly true and it was 
unsafe to act on their evidence insofar as complicity of 
appellants was concerned - Appellants were entitled to 
c benefit of doubt - The order of acquittal passed by trial court 
in favour of appellants is restored. 
Appeal: Special leave petition - Held: Mere dismissal of 
SLP does not amount to acceptance of correctness of High 
Court decision - A-2 was convicted by trial court for the 
D offence u/s.302 IPC but High Cowt altered his conviction from 
s.302 to s.302 /PC r.w. s.149 /PC and his SLP against that 
judgment was dismissed summarily - Dismissal of SLP 
summarily did not mean affirmance of the judgment of the 
High Court on merits - The order of Supreme Court in A-2's 
E SLP is not an impediment in allowing the appeals of 
appellants once it is held that prosecution had failed to prove 
the complicity of the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt 
- It is incorrect to state that since A-2 had a right of appeal ul 
s.2 of the 1970 Act, therefore, the order of Supreme Court 
F dismissing the SLP preferred by him was non-est - The case 
against A-2 stood on a different footing -
The ballistic 
evidence was conclusive against him and there was no doubt 
about his involvement in the crime - Jjudgment of the High 
Court as regards the appellants set aside and judgment of 
G acquittal passed in their favour by the trial court is restored -
Supreme Court (enlargement of criminal appellate 
jurisdiction) Act, 1970 - s.2. 
Witnesses: Interested witness - Evidentiary value of -
Held: The evidence of eye-witnesses, irrespective of their 
H 
JALPAT RAI & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA 
1039 
interestedness, kinship, standing or enmity with the accused, 
A 
if found credible and of such a caliber as to be regarded as 
wholly reliable can be sufficient and enough to bring home 
the guilt of the accused. 
The prosecution case was that on the fateful day, 
8 
PW-1 and another person were sitting in their office. At 
that time, A-2, A-3, A-4 all sons of A-1 came near their 
office. They were all armed with firearms. PW-1 
suspected their movement as he had previous business 
rivalry with A-2 and his family. After about 10-15 minutes, 

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