PAWAN @ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 08-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 882 
PAWAN@ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2194 of2014) 
MARCH 08, 2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND PRA.FULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302134 - Murder - Prosecution case 
was that on the fateful day, the accused persons demanded return 
of their money from the neighbour of the victim-deceased - Deceased 
requested !hem lo waive off the amount and due to /hat altercation 
took place between the deceased and the two accused - After half 
an hour the accused persons came back on scooter and therqilfter 
deceased also left with them but on his separate ~'coater - Tliereafter, 
deceased did not return and next day his dead body was found in 
an open ground - Trial court relying upon the testimony of chance 
witnesses held both the accused guilty u/ss.302134 - High Court 
affirmed conviction - On appeal, held: It is not clear from the record 
as to how these chance witnesses, who stated that they heard 
altercation between the deceased amf Jhe two accused after midnight 
and thereafter heard sound of fire, were present at the spot -
The 
testimony of these witnesses could·not be said to be reliable or 
trustworthy particularly when their statements were not corroborated 
from other evidence on record - In view of the conclusion of the 
Forensic Science Laboratory that the firing mechanism of the 
country-made pistol was not in working order and no opinion could 
be formed regarding the linkage of the pistol with the crime in 
question, the prosecution story, as narrated by chance witnesses 
was highly doubtful - Apart from this, though the motive of crime is 
not necessarily required to be proved, but in the case like the present 
one where the appellants are named 011 suspicion by informant, the 
motive appears to be relevant fact - Informant simply mentioned 
that the deceased had asked the two accused to waive of the 
remaining amount of ( 2501- from the loan of ( 10,0001- taken by 
his neighbour but the same would not appear to be a convincing 
motive to commit the crime by the accused - The said neighbour 
was not examined by prosecution - Even otherwise, in the FIR it 
was nowhere mentioned why actually deceased had gone in his 
separate scooter with the two accused from his house - Prosecution 
882 
PAWAN @ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF 
883 
HARYANA 
failed to prove the charge of offence punishable u/ss.302134 against 
A 
the two accused - Both the accused are acquitted of the charges.· 
All.owing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is a case of circumstantial evidence but for the 
evidence of two chance witnesses, namely PW-4 and PW-5. The 
incident is said to have occurred near Air Force ground. The 
complainant (PW-6), his brother (deceased) and the two accused/ 
appellants were residents of N.I.T., Faridabad. It is not clear 
from the record as to how these chance witnesses (PW-4 and 
PW-5) who have stated that they heard altercation between the 
deceased and the two accused after midnight and thereafter heard 
sound of fire, knew them. The testimony of these witnesses cannot 
be said to be reliable or trustworthy particularly w.hen their 
statements are not corroborated from other evidence on record. 
The conclusions of the examination conducted in the Forensic 
Science Laboratory was that the firing mechanism of the 
countrymade pistol was not in working order. Further, it ~lated 
that scientifically, the time of its last firing cannot be given and 
therefore/ no opinion could be formed regarding the linkage of 
the pistol with the crime in question. In view of the conclusions 
given by Forensic Science Laboratory, the prosecution story, as 
narrated by PW-4 and PW-5 was highly doubtful. [Paras 8, 9] 
[886-H; 887-A-B, EJ 
2. Apart from this, though the motive of crime is not 
necessarily required to be proved, but in the case like the present 
one where the appellants are named on suspicion by informant 
PW-6 in the First Information Report (which does not contain 
names of PW-4 and PW-5 as witnesses who had seeri the 
occurrence), the motive appears to be relevant fact. PW-6 has 
simply mentioned that the deceased had asked the two accused 
to waive of the remaining amount of~ 250/- from the loan of 
~ 10,000/- taken by his neighbour but the same does not appear 
to be a convincing motive to commit the crime by the appellants. 
Prosecution did not examine the said neighbour if he had taken 
loan of~ 10,000/- and paid o

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