VARUN CHAUDHARY versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 29-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 296 
VARUN CHAUDHARY 
v. 
, 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(~riminal Appeal No. 705 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 29, 2010 
[DR. MUKdNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, 
JJ.) 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
s.302 - Conviction under, by courts below, based on 
circumstantial evidence -Held: In the case of circumstantial 
evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence which 
would lead to a conclusion that the accused was the only 
person, who could have committed the offence and nobody 
D else - In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the 
accused had committed the offence - Judgments of courts 
below set aside and the accused acquitted - Evidence -
Circumstantial evidence - Test Identification parade. 
E 
EVIDENCE: 
Identification of vehicle - A motor cycle recovered as the 
vehicle used in the offence - Held: Unless tyre marks are 
lifted from the place of occurrence and upon its comparison 
F with the tyre marks of the motor cycle recovered, are found to 
be the same, it cannot be said that the motor cycle recovered 
was used in the offence - In the instant case, there is no such 
evidence - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. 
The father of P.W. 11 was found dead in the night of 
G 22.8.2000 at a place near his residence. In the course of 
investigation, the appellants (A-1 and A-2) and A-3 were 
arrested. A knife from A-1 and blood-stained clothes of 
A-3 were recovered. The trial court, in view of recovery 
of the knife from A-1, the incised wounds found on the 
H 
296 
VARUN CHAUDHARY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
297 
body of the deceased, and the evidence of PW-3 and PW-
A 
6, held A-1 guilty and convicted him u/s 302 IPC. A-1 filed 
an appeal against his conviction; whereas the State 
appealed against acquittal of A-2 and A-3. The High Court 
dismissed the appeal of A-1, allowed that of the State and 
convicted and sentenced A-2 and A-3 also u/s 302 read 
B 
with s. 34 IPC. Aggrieved, A-1 and A-2 filed the appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELO: 1.1 It was a case of circumstantial evidence 
C 
as nobody had seen the commission of the offence. It is 
a settled legal position that in the case of circumstantial 
evidence, there must be a complete chain of evidence 
which would lead to a conclusion that the accused was 
the only person, who could have committed the offence 
D 
and none else. In the instant case, there is nothing to 
show that the accused had committed the offence and 
on the basis of the material on record, it would be 
dangerous to convict the accused. [para 3 and 24] [302-
C; 309-0-E] 
E 
G. Parashwanath vs. State of Karnataka, 2010 (10) 
SCR 377 = (2010) 8 SCC 593; C. Chenga Reddy v. State of 
A.P. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 479 = (1996) 10 SCC 193 - relied 
on. 
F 
1.2 The Home Guard, PW-3, who was on duty near 
the place of the incident on the date of occurrence, stated 
that he had seen three persons on a motor cycle around 
midnight. However, he stated that he could not identify 
the persons on the motor cycle. Similarly, the Police G 
Constable, PW-6, had stated that around 12 midnight on 
22.8.2000, he had seen three persons on a motor cycle 
and he whistled so as to stop the said motor cyclist but 
it did not stop. It is pertinent to note that these two 
witnesses did not say that they had seen any of the 
H 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A accused. They did not even see the faces of the three 
persons, who were on the motor cycle. In these set of 
circumstances, having identification parade would be 
futile and, therefore, there was no test identification 
parade. rhus, nobody had seen any of the accused. [para 
B 5, 6 and 20] [302-F-H; 303-A; 307-E-F] 
1.3 So far as identification of the motor cycle is 
concerned, PW-6 merely stated that he saw one digit of 
registration number of the motor cycle, which wa!> '9'. It 
would be dangerous to believe that the motor cycle 
C recovered, which also had digit '9' in its number, was 
used in the offence. On such scanty evidence it cannot 
be said that the accused had been identified or the motor 
cycle which had been recovered was the one which was 
used by the accused at the time of the offence. [para 20] 
D [307-F-H] 
1.4 The so-called recovery of knife and blood stained 
clothes would not help the prosecution. Recovery of the 
motor cycle cannot be said to be proved because PW-9 
E admitted the fact that he had signed the recovery 
panchnama in the police station; whereas another 
witness, P.W.25, could not establish 

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