RANDHIR @ RANDHIR PAL & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2016] 5 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 06-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 5 S.C.R. 827 
RANDHIR @ RANDl-lIR PAL & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of2010) 
OCTOBER 06, 2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860: ss. I 48, 302, 342, 452 rlw s.149 -
Victim-
deceased attacked and shot dead in a shop - Allegations against 
appellants that they were standing in the street and preventing 
people from entering the shop and from moving on the street in 
front of the shop at the time when other accused persons were 
assaulting the victim - Conviction of appellants under ss. 148, 302, 
342, 452 rlw s. I 49 by courts below - Challenge against - Held: 
Statement of eye-witnesses was to the effect that the appellants were 
not involved in the assault which took place inside the shop - Neither 
of these appellants were stated to have caused injuries to the 
deceased - Naming the persons who were purportedly prevented 
from entering the shop premises was an afterthought, as these 
persons were not named when PW7 registered his complaint, on the 
date of the occurrence itself - Evidence showed that there was 
previous enmity between complainant party and the appellants -
Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the appellants were involved 
in the occurrence -Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt and hence 
acquitted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The statement of PW-7 was to the effect that 
besides stopping people from moving on the street, some named 
persons, were also prevented from entering into the shop. It is 
not a matter of dispute, that the instant version was an addition 
to the original version depicted by PW7, at the time of registering 
the complaint. Inasmuch as, in the First Information Report, it 
was neither stated that any of these appellants, namely - A2, A4, 
A7, AS and All, were armed. And furthermore, none of the 
persons who have now been named (as having been prevented 
from entering the shop), were mentioned earlier. The version 
827 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
828 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
depicted by PW8, when he deposed before the trial court, was on 
similar lines as PW7. Based primarily on the evidence of the 
above two eye-witnesses (PW7 and PW8), the trial court found 
the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them, under 
sections 148, 302, 342, 452 read with section 149 of the Penal 
Code, as also, as against Al under the Arms Act. [Paras 5 and 6) 
[830-G-H; 831-A-B) 
2. Even as per the statements of two eye-witnesses, namely, 
the brothers of the deceased (PW7 and PW8), the present five 
appellants were not involved in the assault which had taken place 
within the shop premises, on 26.11.2002. Neither of these five 
appellants can, therefore, be stated to have caused any injuries 
to the deceased, on the fateful day. The persons named by PW7, 
as being prevented from entering the shop premises, was an 
afterthought, as these persons were not named when PW7 
registered his complaint, on the date of the occurrence itself. 
Not only that, the statement of PW8 clearly demolishes the version, 
with reference to those persons since in the statement of PW7, 
for the reason, that PW8 took the position, that after the 
occurrence, he had gone to his field, to call for help. Even though 
there is no material on the record of the case, to identify whether 
the persons my1~ed in the statements of PW7 and PW8, were the 
same persons, it is quite apparent, that they indeed seem to be 
the same persons, on account of the names being the same. The 
testimony of PW7, with reference to stopping persons from 
coming into the shop, by the five named appellants before this 
Court, appears to be false. In any case, this factual position cannot 
be stated to be fully established. Appellants namely A2, A-7 and 
A-11 are relatives of a person whose murder was committed 
around year prior to the fateful incident. It is a,pparent, therefore, 
that on account of enmity, innocent family members of the accused 
persons, were also roped in. [Paras 13, 14, 15) [833-D-H; 834-A-
C] 
3. It is difficult to conclude with certainty, that the present 
five appellants, were truly and factually involved in the occurrence. 
In the above view of the matter, the appellants are entitled to the 
benefit of doubt. Accordingly, while giving the benefit of doubt to 
the appellants, the appellants (A2, A4, A 7, and All) are acquitted 
of the charges levelled against them. [Para 16) [834-D-E] 
RANDHIR@

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