SOHAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 02-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
SOHAN AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
MARCH 2, 2001 
[U.C. BANERJEE AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial : 
Criminal jurisprudence-Basic or fundamental principles-E1•idence-
App1~ciation of-Bun/en of proof-Held: Is on the prosecution-Prosecution 
A 
B 
has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts-Such basic or funda-
C 
mental principles of criminal jurisprudence should be kept in mind while 
appreciating evidence. 
Conviction-Based on the sole evidence of one of the eye\vitnesses-
Other eyewitness-Non-examination of-Eyewitness examined was an inter-
ested witness and also inimical to the accused-Effect of-Held: It is unsafe 
D 
to act on the evidence of such eyewitness without any convboration-Non-
examination of other material lvitnesses is a serious lacuna in the prosecution 
case-Non-examination oft he other eyewitness is also fatal-Rener: conviction 
set aside. 
The appellants-accused were convicted by the trial court hased on 
E 
the sole evidence of one of the eyewitnesses (PW-7) for offences under 
Sections 148 and 302 read with Scction149 of the Penal Code, 1860. The 
High Court upheld the conviction. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution N and his cousin (PW-7) started l"rom 
their village to attend court hearing in a civil litigation between themselves 
F 
and the accused persons. When they were at the outskirts of the village, the 
accused persons gave lathi hlows to N, who died on the next day at the 
hospital. 
On behalf of the accused persons it was contended that PW-7 was 
not a trustworthy witness as he had made a false statement regarding the 
G 
parties to 'the civil litigation; that PW-7 was an interested, 'vitness, being a 
cousin of the deceased, and inimical to the accused persons; that there was 
no corroboration to the evidence of PW-7; and that non-examination of 
the other eyewitness was fatal to the prosecution. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
309 
H 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. An accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
guilty. The burden of proof, that he is guilty, is on the prosecution and that 
the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In 
other words, the innocence of an accused can be dispelled by the prosecu-
tion only on establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis 
of the evidence. In this case, if only the Sessions Judge had reminded 
himself of the above mentioned basic or fundamental principles of crimi-
nal jurisprudence, direction or his approach and course of his appreciation 
of evidence would have been different and thereby perversity in apprecia-
tion of evidence could have been avoided. [315-H; 316-A]. 
2. The prosecution case entirely rested on the sole evidence of PW-7, 
who was not only interested, being the cousin of the deceased, and was 
inimical too to the accused in view of the civil litigation. It was unsafe to act 
on his evidence "ithout any corroboration. Although there were material 
"itnesses available to corroborate, their non-examination or "ithholding 
their evidence was a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. Non-examina-
tion of the other eyefiltness whose name was mentioned in the FIR and who 
had \vitnessed the occurrence according to PW-7, was also Catal.[317-G] 
3.1. The credibility or PW-7 and truthfulness of his evidence in the 
circumstances needed to be scrutinized filth great care and caution;, His 
evidence does not inspire confidence. [318-E] 
3.2. The Sessions Court as well as the High Court have concurrently 
and manifestly erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. In a case 
like this interference filth the impugned judgment and order is called for 
to do substantial justice. [318-H; 319-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 247 
of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.9.1986 of the High Court of 
Pnnjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. Appeal No. 454-DB of 1985. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 731 of 1991 
-
,. . 
-
Sushi! Kumar, Jaspal Singh, Ms. Gauri K. Das, Ms. Gitanjali Malviya, 
;,. ~ 
Ravi Wadhwa, Ms. Rani Jethmalani, R.C. Kohli, Maninder Singh, A. 
H 
Mariarput11am, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Neera_j Kumar Jain, Mahabir Singh and 
 
... " 
... 
SOHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA [SHIVARAJ PATIL, J.] 
Jrfan Ahmed for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
311 
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. These appeals are directed against the 
judgment and order of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.