RAJAN versus THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 02-09-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, SANDEEP MEHTA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 744 : 2025 INSC 1081
Rajan  
v.  
The State of Haryana
(Criminal Appeal No. 3904 of 2025)
02 September 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the 
courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence 
punishable u/ss.302/34 IPC and ss.25, 27 of the Arms Act; and 
delay at the instance of the High Court in uploading the judgment 
after a period of about 2 years 5 months.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25, 27 – 
Murder – Appellant and one co-accused guilty of the alleged 
offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – One 
co-accused absconded and three other co-accused acquitted 
of all the charges – High Court upheld the order passed by 
the trial court – Correctness:
Held: Trial court and the High Court well appreciated the oral version 
of the two eyewitnesses in its true perspective and correctly – All 
other relevant aspects of the matter looked into threadbare – Just 
because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by the 
appellant not recovered or discovered u/s.27 of the Evidence Act 
at any point of time during the course of the investigation would 
not render the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses doubtful – 
Once the case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence, 
motive pales into insignificance – Despite there being a delay of 2 
years 5 months in uploading the judgment by the High Court, the 
oral testimony of the two eyewitnesses inspires confidence and 
nothing on record in the form of any intrinsic evidence to render 
their testimony doubtful. [Paras 30, 35, 40, 42, 45, 48]
Judicial deprecation – Delay at the instance of the High 
Court in uploading the Judgment after a period of about 2 
years 5 months – Is a matter of grave concern – Serious 
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 
745
Rajan v. The State of Haryana
cognizance taken of the delay at the instance of the High 
Court – Practice of few High Courts to pronounce the operative 
part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a 
substantial length of time uploading the reasoned judgment, 
has been deprecated – This practice deprives the aggrieved 
party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal 
more particularly in criminal matters wherein the appeal is 
dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction 
passed by the trial court – Thus, there should be no delay 
at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order 
more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is 
pronounced. [Paras 41, 43, 48]
Evidence – Ocular evidence – Principles for appreciation of 
ocular evidence in a criminal case – Stated. [Paras 32-34]
Case Law Cited
Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra [2023] 6 
SCR 851 : (2023) 13 SCC 365; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev 
Singh Talwandi [1984] 2 SCR 50 : (1984) 1 SCC 596; Zahira 
Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [2004] 3 
SCR 1050 : (2004) 4 SCC 158; Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana 
[2008] 2 SCR 80 : (2008) 7 SCC 96; Ajay Singh and Anr. v. State 
of Chhattisgarh and Anr. [2017] 1 SCR 286 : (2017) 3 SCC 330; 
Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 
(2021) 12 SCC 603; Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State 
of Gujarat and Ors., 2024 INSC 801 : [2024] 10 SCR 2227; K. 
Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil and Ors., 2022 
INSC 1025 : [2022] 7 SCR 425; Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001] 
Supp. 1 SCR 298 : (2001) 7 SCC 318 – relied on.
Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh and Another [2022] 3 SCR 
73 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 461; State through the Inspector of 
Police CBI, ACB, Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan & Anr., decided 
on 01-10-2024; State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others 
[2011] 10 SCR 823 : (2011) 9 SCC 115; Krishna Mochi and 
Others v. State of Bihar [2002] 3 SCR 1 : (2002) 6 SCC 81; 
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs. [2001] 1 
SCR 948 : (2001) 3 SCC 179; Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State 
of UP and Ors., 2025 INSC 1039 : [2025] 8 SCR 1525; State 
of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi [1984] 2 SCR 50 : (1984) 1 
SCC 596 – referred to.
746
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Delay of 2 years 5 months in uploading the Judgment; Oral 
testimony; Absconded; Ocular version of the eyewitnesses; Direct 
evidence; Motive; Appr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.