SURINDER SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 05-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURINDER SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial-Evidence-Witnesses-Relatives of deceased 
examined as witnesses-Credibility of-Such witnesses need not necessarily 
be unreliable-Indian Penal Code-Section 302 
Criminal Trial-Evidence-Non-examination of some independent 
witnesses not coming forward to depose-Effect of-Prosecution version 
does not become suspect if other witness examined-Indian Penal Code-
Section 302. 
A 
B 
c 
Criminal Trial-Site Plan-Preparation of-Admissibility as D 
evidence-Prepared on hearsay and therefore not admissible-Position of 
eye-witness not reflected in site plan-Held, this is not fatal to the case of 
the prosecution-Indian Penal Code-Section 302. 
Criminal Trial-Medical Evidence-Variance with ocular evidence- E 
Reliability of prosecution's case-Test of-Held, prosecution should be 
disbelieved only when the medical evidence totally improbabilises the 
ocular evidence-Indian Penal Code-Section 302. 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986-Section 2-Juvenile-Minority of F 
accused-Question of-Determination of-Should be decided only when 
the court entertains a doubt-Accused raising no plea of minority during 
the trial-Held, there was no occasion for the court to determine the 
question of minority-Uttar Pradesh Children Act, 1951-Section 2-
Criminal Trial-Minority. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 378-Appeal against 
acquittal-Interference with order of acquittal-Grounds for-Should not 
be interfered lightly-High Court obliged to consider and discuss each of 
the reasons given by the Trial Court to acquit the accused and then 
G 
dislodge those reasons-Indian Penal Code-Section 302. 
H 
401 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellants were charged for commission of offences under 
Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case 
of the prosecution was that the deceased along with his brother, PW 
I, were going to Bilaspur when they met PW 4, who was the son of 
the sister of the deceased. PW I stopped to talk to PW 4 and asked 
B the deceased to proceed. The deceased had proceeded a few paces only 
when he was attacked by the appellants with swords. When alarm was 
raised, PW 2 (a police constable) and PW 3 came to the place of 
occurrence. PW 2 and PW I managed to capture the appellants with 
their swords whereas the third accused escaped. F.I.R. was registered 
on the basis of the statement of PW I. The motive behind the attack 
c was alleged to be past animosity between the accused and the family 
of the deceased. 
The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove their case. 
PW I, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 were examined as eye-witnesses. The 
D Trial Court acquitted all the accu~ed on grounds, inter alia, that the 
eye-witnesses were chance-witnesses; that PW I and PW 4 were both 
relatives of the deceased; that no independent witness was examined 
by the prosecution; that the ocular evidence was not in conformity with 
the medical evidence; that the presence of PW 2 at place of occurrence 
E was doubtful as the site plan did not indicate the place from where he 
had witnessed the occurrence. 
On appeal by the respondent, the High Court set aside the order 
of the Trial Court and convicted the appellants. 
F 
The appellants filed appeal before this Court. Before this Court, 
the counsel for the appellants raised an additional that the appellants 
were juveniles at the time of occurrence and in the jail they were kept 
in a cell meant for juveniles. It was contended that since the trial 
proceeded on the assumption that they were not juveniles, the trial was 
G vitiated. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. The ground that the witness being a close relative and 
consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has 
H no substance. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a 
SURINDER SINGH v. ST A TE 
403 
witness. It is more often than not that the relation would not conceal A 
actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. 
Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such 
cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence 
to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (411-A, B, G] 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, AIR (1953) SC 364; 
Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [1974] 3 SCC 698; Vadivelu 
Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR (1957) SC 614; Masalti and Ors

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