NARESH @ NEHRU versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2023] 13 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 09-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 771 : 2023 INSC 889
771
CASE DETAILS
NARESH @ NEHRU
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1786 of 2023)
OCTOBER 09, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Conviction of the appellants for off ences 
punishable u/s.302 r/w s.149, IPC based on the statement of PW-9, as an 
eyewitness to the crime, if justifi ed.
Evidence – Of eyewitness – When not to be relied upon:
Held: Evidence of the eye-witness should be of very sterling quality 
and calibre and it should not only instil confi dence in the court to accept 
the same but it should also be a version of such nature that can be accepted 
at its face value – In the present case, testimony of PW-9 (cousin of the 
deceased) was shrouded with inconsistencies and he had not named the 
appellants in the FIR – Contradictions in PW-9’s statement were glaring – 
Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable 
doubt – Non-consideration of the lacuna in the prosecution case in proper 
perspective by the Trial Court and the High Court resulted in miscarriage of 
justice – Conviction of the appellants unsustainable – Judgment of Courts 
below set aside – Appellants acquitted of the off ences alleged. [Paras 9.1-
9.3, 10 and 11]
Evidence – CCTV footage – Reliance placed to convict the 
appellants and co-accused persons, if proper:
Held: Said evidence could not have been relied upon as it was infested 
with serious doubts and the very manner in which it came into existence 
itself raised a serious doubt not only about its source but also about the 
presence of the appellants at the scene of crime – PW-8 who made a video 
from his mobile phone of the CCTV footage on 22.04.2016 claimed to 
 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
772
have handed over the recorded CD (Ex.P.3) to the police on 01.06.2016 – 
However, the video (CD) was not forwarded by the police to the Forensic 
Science Laboratory – PW-8 claims to have downloaded the video from his 
mobile phone and transferred to his laptop and then prepared CD (Ex.P.3) 
– Neither laptop nor mobile phone was produced by prosecution or had 
been seized by the police during the course of investigation – Trial court’s 
conclusion is based on inconsistent evidence and there is lack of clarity in 
the evidence of PW.8 – He identifi ed his signature on the certifi cate Ex. 
P-L (furnished as required u/s.65-B, Evidence Act) which was prepared by 
police offi  cial who was not examined – Further, Ex.P.3 was played in the trial 
court and the Sessions Judge recorded that from the video clips the faces of 
assailants and complainants were not decipherable – PW-8 admitted in his 
cross-examination that certifi cate Ex.PL was prepared by a police offi  cial, 
and he had affi  xed his signature to Ex.PL – He also admitted that faces of 
the assailants were not visible and identifi able and the registration numbers 
of the motorcycles were also not visible – Investigating Offi  cer (PW-15) 
also admitted in his cross-examination that faces of the accused are not 
identifi able from the video – The said video according to PW-8 was taken 
from the CCTV camera located in the house of ‘D’ who was never cited as 
a witness by the prosecution – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.65-B. [Paras 9.4, 9.5]
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25, 26 – Confessional statement of the 
accused and co-accused were recorded when they were in police custody:
Held: Such confessional statements would become inadmissible 
having regard to the provisions of ss.25, 26 – s.25 makes it clear that no 
confession made to a police offi  cer shall be proved as against a person 
accused of any off ence – Likewise, s.26 states that any such statement is 
inadmissible if given while in police custody. [Para 9.6]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.149:
Held: In order to attract s.149, it must be shown by the prosecution that 
the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object by such 
unlawful assembly – It must be within the knowledge of the other members 
as one likely to be committed in furtherance of the common object – Even if 
no overt act is imputed to the accused, the presence of the accused as part of 
the unlawful assembly is suffi  cient for conviction – Inference of a common 
object has to be drawn from various factors such as the weapons with which 
773
the members were armed, their movements, the acts of violence committed 
by them, and the end result – In the present case, High Court held that every 
member had inhibited the 

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