RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL ETC.

Citation: [2025] 10 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 07-10-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 342 : 2025 INSC 1193
Rajendra Singh and Ors. 
v. 
State of Uttaranchal Etc.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 476-477 of 2013)
07 October 2025
[Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by 
the High Court convicting the appellants u/s.302 IPC; and whether 
the appellants are the real persons who chased the deceased 
and killed him.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Benefit of doubt – 
Altercation between the parties over a land dispute – Few 
hours later, the appellants armed with swords and sharp 
edged weapon inflicted blows upon the son of the complainant 
resulting in his death – Acquittal by the trial court, however, 
conviction of the appellants-father, son and son-in-law 
u/s.302 with life imprisonment and fine by the High Court – 
Correctness: 
Held: Statement of the appellants that the weapons recovered 
were the weapons of crime cannot be read against them in view 
of ss.25 and 26 rw s.27 of the 1872 Act – Only that part of the 
statement which leads the police to the recovery of the weapons 
is admissible, and not the part which alleges that the weapons 
recovered were actually the weapons of crime – Ocular evidence 
of prosecution witnesses, if read together, not sufficient to identify 
the appellants as the persons who attacked and assaulted the 
deceased resulting in his death – Their presence at the scene of 
crime becomes doubtful – Information leading to the recovery of 
the weapons of crime is admissible, but not the information that the 
crime was actually committed by the said weapons – Identity of the 
appellants as the persons involved in the offence not established 
* Author
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 
343
Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal Etc.
either by any ocular evidence or from the recovery of the weapons 
of crime – Order of acquittal passed by the trial court not open to 
interference by the first appellate court until and unless the findings 
recorded by the trial court were per se perverse or erroneous – It 
is safer and more appropriate to rely upon the findings of the trial 
court which has seen the demeanor of the witnesses rather than 
to rely upon the findings of the first appellate court – High Court 
erred in reversing the finding of the trial court without coming to the 
conclusion that the findings of the trial court were perverse  – High 
Court manifestly erred in interfering with the findings of acquittal 
recorded by the trial court and reversing the judgment so as to 
convict the appellants – Doubtful whether the offence has been 
committed by the appellants – Conviction of the appellants set 
aside – Appellants acquitted of the alleged offence by granting 
them the benefit of doubt – Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25 and 26 
rw s.27. [Paras 33-36]
Case Law Cited
Manjunath and Ors. v. State of Karnataka [2023] 14 SCR 727 : 
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1421 – referred to.
Pulukuri Kottaya and Ors. v. The King Emperor, 1947 MWN 
CR 45 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872.
List of Keywords
Murder; Benefit of doubt; Altercation between the parties; Swords 
and sharp edged weapon; Acquittal; Life imprisonment; Weapons; 
Ocular evidence.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 
476-477 of 2013
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2013 of the High Court 
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in GA No. 347 of 2007 and CRLR No. 
164 of 2003
344
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Vivek Singh, Ms. Mary Mitzy, Ms. Saumya Saraswat, Ayush Gupta, 
Abhishek Gupta, Vishwajeet Singh Bhati.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Kuldeep Parihar, D.A.G., Akshat Kumar, Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Ms. 
Ikshita Parihar, Amit Pawan.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1.	
All the three appellants, father, son and son-in-law are accused in 
Session Trial No.215 of 2000 for the murder of Pushpendra Singh, 
son of Diler Singh. 
2.	
They were acquitted by the Trial Court but have been convicted 
under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) with life 
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each by the High Court vide 
the judgment and order dated 02.01.2013 passed in Government 
Appeal No.347 of 2007 (State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajendra Singh 
and Ors.).
3.	
All the three accused have challenged the aforesaid judgment and 
order of their conviction and sentence by means of this appeal

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