SURYAVIR versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1
1
SURYAVIR
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 03, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302, 34 and 120-B – Indian Arms
Act, 1959 –s.25 – The present appellant-original accused no.1 along
with two persons (‘D’ and ‘P’) were tried for having committed
murder of PW-12’s son – FIR was registered against the accused
persons at the instance of PW-12 (father of deceased) – Recovery
memo of weapon was prepared – Trial Court convicted accused
no.1 and ‘D’ of offence punishable u/s. 302/34IPC and acquitted
‘P’ of all charges – On appeal against conviction High Court affirmed
the view taken by trial Court – Accused ‘D’ preferred SLP challenging
his conviction and sentence, which was rejected by the Supreme
Court – Appellant-accused no.1 thereafter approached
SupremeCourt against the judgment of High Court contending that
the identity of the accused persons was not established – Held: PW-
12 and PW-15 (mother of deceased) were not aware of the identity
of the assailants – Their source of information was rumours, on
basis of which an assertion about the identity of the appellant was
made in FIR – Therefore, assertions in the FIR and examination-in-
chief of witnesses are not trustworthy – PW-12 in his examination
in chief asserted that his wife (PW-15) informed him that on the day
previous to incident two accused persons came to their house asking
about their son, while he was away – Whereas, PW-15 had not
asserted in her examination-in-chief that two accused had come to
her house on previous day hence, there was no occasion for her to
have seen the appellant earlier – Furthermore, no Test Identification
parade was conducted – Box identification for the first time in court
is not reliable in itself to establish the identity of the assailants –
Evidence of recovery is not in itself sufficient in absence of
substantive evidence – Prosecution failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubts – Appellant acquitted – Similar benefit of doubt
extended to the accused ‘D’ and acquittal granted.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is quite clear that PW-12 and PW-15 were not
aware of the identity of the assailants. Their source of information
was rumours, on the basis of which an assertion about the identity
of the appellant was made in the first information report. What
was the source of information, was never disclosed at any juncture
nor any witness was examined by the prosecution to establish
that. In the absence of primary source who knew the identity and
had witnessed the incident, such assertions in the first information
report as well as the examination-in-chief of the witnesses would
not be adequate and trustworthy. It was not even the case of PW-
15 that two convicted accused had come to her house on the
previous day. As a matter of fact, she did not even assert anything
about the incident that occurred on the previous day. There was,
thus, no occasion for her to have seen the convicted accused
earlier. Furthermore, no test identification parade was conducted.
Box identification by the witnesses for the first time in court, in
the circumstances, could not by itself be relied upon to establish
the identity of the assailants. [Para 17][9-E-H]
2. That leaves this with subsidiary evidence regarding
recovery, which in the absence of substantive evidence, by itself
would not be sufficient. In the circumstances, in our considered
view, the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The appellant would, therefore, be entitled to
acquittal. The instant appeal is thus allowed acquitting him of the
charges levelled against him. [Para 18][10-A-B]
3. In view of this Court, the cases of both the convicted
accused i.e. ‘D’ and the present appellant stand on the same footing
and if after having considered the matter, benefit is given to the
present appellant, similar benefit ought to be extended to ‘D’.
[Para 20][10-C-D]
Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra
(2003) 2 SCC 708; Harbans Singh vs. State of U.P.
(1982) 2 SCC 101 : [1982] 3 SCR 235 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
Case Law Reference
[2003] 2 SCC 708
relied on
Para 21
[1982] 3 SCR 235
relied on
Para 21
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
177 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2014 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA No. D-1049-DB of 200

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