PAWAN @ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF HARYANA
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 882, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 882 
PAWAN@ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2194 of2014) 
MARCH 08, 2017 
[N. V. RAMANA AND PRA.FULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302134 - Murder - Prosecution case 
was that on the fateful day, the accused persons demanded return 
of their money from the neighbour of the victim-deceased - Deceased 
requested !hem lo waive off the amount and due to /hat altercation 
took place between the deceased and the two accused - After half 
an hour the accused persons came back on scooter and therqilfter 
deceased also left with them but on his separate ~'coater - Tliereafter, 
deceased did not return and next day his dead body was found in 
an open ground - Trial court relying upon the testimony of chance 
witnesses held both the accused guilty u/ss.302134 - High Court 
affirmed conviction - On appeal, held: It is not clear from the record 
as to how these chance witnesses, who stated that they heard 
altercation between the deceased amf Jhe two accused after midnight 
and thereafter heard sound of fire, were present at the spot -
The 
testimony of these witnesses could·not be said to be reliable or 
trustworthy particularly when their statements were not corroborated 
from other evidence on record - In view of the conclusion of the 
Forensic Science Laboratory that the firing mechanism of the 
country-made pistol was not in working order and no opinion could 
be formed regarding the linkage of
the pistol with the crime in 
question, the prosecution story, as narrated by chance witnesses 
was highly doubtful - Apart from this, though the motive of crime is 
not necessarily required to be proved, but in the case like the present 
one where the appellants are named 011 suspicion by informant, the 
motive appears to be relevant fact - Informant simply mentioned 
that the deceased had asked the two accused to waive of the 
remaining amount of ( 2501- from the loan of ( 10,0001- taken by 
his neighbour but the same would not appear to be a convincing 
motive to commit the crime by the accused - The said neighbour 
was not examined by prosecution - Even otherwise, in the FIR it 
was nowhere mentioned why actually deceased had gone in his 
separate scooter with the two accused from his house - Prosecution 
882
PAWAN @ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF 
883 
HARYANA 
failed to prove the charge of offence punishable u/ss.302134 against 
A 
the two accused - Both the accused are acquitted of the charges.· 
All.owing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is a case of circumstantial evidence but for the 
evidence of two chance witnesses, namely PW-4 and PW-5. The 
incident is said to have occurred near Air Force ground. The 
complainant (PW-6), his brother (deceased) and the two accused/ 
appellants were residents of N.I.T., Faridabad. It is not clear 
from the record as to how these chance witnesses (PW-4 and 
PW-5) who have stated that they heard altercation between the 
deceased and the two accused after midnight and thereafter heard 
sound of fire, knew them. The testimony of these witnesses cannot 
be said to be reliable or trustworthy particularly w.hen their 
statements are not corroborated from other evidence on record. 
The conclusions of the examination conducted in the Forensic 
Science Laboratory was that the firing mechanism of the 
countrymade pistol was not in working order. Further, it ~lated 
that scientifically, the time of its last firing cannot be given and 
therefore/ no opinion could be formed regarding the linkage of 
the pistol with the crime in question. In view of the conclusions 
given by Forensic Science Laboratory, the prosecution story, as 
narrated by PW-4 and PW-5 was highly doubtful. [Paras 8, 9] 
[886-H; 887-A-B, EJ 
2. Apart from this, though the
motive of crime is not 
necessarily required to be proved, but in the case like the present 
one where the appellants are named on suspicion by informant 
PW-6 in the First Information Report (which does not contain 
names of PW-4 and PW-5 as witnesses who had seeri the 
occurrence), the motive appears to be relevant fact. PW-6 has 
simply mentioned that the deceased had asked the two accused 
to waive of the remaining amount of~ 250/- from the loan of 
~ 10,000/- taken by his neighbour but the same does not appear 
to be a convincing motive to commit the crime by the appellants. 
Prosecution did not examine the said neighbour if he had taken 
loan of~ 10,000/- and paid off the same minus the amount~ 250/-. 
Even otherwise, in the I<'irst Information Report it was nowhere 
mentioned why actually (deceased) had gone in his separate 
scooter with the two appellants from his house. [Paras 10, 11] 
[887-F-H; 881!-AJ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
884 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 7] 2 S.C.R. 
3. The trial court as well as the High Court had erred in law 
in holding that the charge against the two accused stood proved. 
The prosecution has failed to prove the charge of offence 
punishable nuder Section 302/34 IPC against the two accused. 
The charge of offence punishable under Se.ction 25 of the Arms 
Act, 1959 against accused 'A' was also not proved beyond 
reasonable doubt. [Paras 12, 13) [888-A-C] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
2194of2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.04.2014 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. D-391-
DB of2002. 
Basant R., Sr. Adv .. Sunny Choudhary, Arun Boomulli, Advs. for 
the Appellants. 
Anil Grover, AAG., Ms. Noopur Singhal, Sanjay Kr. Visen, Ad vs. 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. I. This appeal is directed against 
judgment and order dated 02.04.2014, passed by the High Court of Punjab 
and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. D-391-DB of2002 whereby said 
Court has dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction and sentence 
under Section 302/3 4 !PC, against accused/appellants Pawan @ Raj inder 
Singh andAjit@Dara Singh, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, 
Fast Track Court No. I, Faridabad. The High Court has further affirmed 
the conviction and sentence recorded against accused/appellant Ajit@ 
Dara Singh under Section 25 of the Arms
Act, 1959. 
. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 
of the case. 
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Deepak (deceased) was elder 
brother of PW-6 Amit Kumar (complainant). Amit Kumar had a business 
of selling flowers, and his elder brother used to do the delivery work. 
The.ir neighbour Gola (not examined) had taken a loan of~ I 0,000/- on 
interest from accused Pawan, and he (the debtor) had returned the same 
except~ 250/-. On 09.11.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. accused Pawan@ 
Rajinder Singh and his cousin accused Ajit@ Dara Singh demanded 
remaining~ 250/- from Gola to which the deceased requested them to
PAWAN@ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF 
HARYANA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
-885 
waive the said amount due to which some altercation took place between 
the deceased and the two accused. About half an hour thereafter both 
the accused came back on a scooter, and Deepak (deceased) also left 
with them but on his separate scooter bearing registration No. HR 51 E- · 
4749. Deepak did not return till late night. On this, PW-6 Amit Kumar 
and his father Ram Nath started search for him. In the next morning 
they came to know that dead body of a person is lying near Air Force 
ground. Both, father and son went there and saw that .it was the dead 
body .ofDeepak. Suspecting that appellants Pawan@ Rajinder Singh 
and Ajit@ Dara Singh had con1mitted the murder, a report (Ex PE-I) 
was given to the police in the early hours of 10.1 I .2000 mentioPingtheir 
names. On the basis of said report, First Information Report No. 803 
dated I 0.11.2000 (Ex.PK) was registered at Police Station, N.l.T., 
Faridabad. 
4. Investigation was initiated by PW-9 ASI Jai Singh, and later 
PW-12 Inspector Raj Pal Singh took over the same. PW-9 AS! Jai · 
Singh, after taking the dead body in his possession, got the inquest report 
(Ex. PL-I) and site plan (Ex.PM) prepared. An empty cartridge was 
also recovered from the place of incident. PW-12 Inspector Raj Pal 
Singh, Investigating Officer got sent the empty cartridge to Forensic 
Science Laboratory for examination. He also took the blood stained
·earth from the spot. He interrogated the witnesses. Meanwhile, PW-I 
Dr. D.S .. Rathi, along with Dr. Sunita Gupta and Dr. P.S. Yadav, conducted 
the post mortem examination on 10.11.2000 at about 5.00 p.m. In the· 
autopsy report (Ex. PL) following ~nte mortem injury is mentioned: -
"A circularcircumscri/Jedwound 2.5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. in diameter 
and 2 c.in. from middle of chest on left side at level of I 0'" rib. 
On probing going downward posteriorly, blackening and 
·singeing present around the wound, margins inverted. On 
examination few pellets found embedded, underneath the skin 
and soft tissues. On dissection the pleural cavity contained 
blood. A few metallic pellets found inside in left chest and 
pleural cavity, removed. On further dissection hole in stomach 
also present. On further examination a foreign body of 
rounded shape 2. c.m. in size was found and removed. The 
pellets and the foreign body sealed in a vial. " 
5. During investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested both 
the accused, and on their disclosure scooter bearing registration No. HR 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
886 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
51 C 1609 was recovered from their house. The prosecution case is 
that a country made pistol was also recovered on the disclosure statement 
(Ex. PK) made by accused Ajit@ Dara Singh. A broken butt of the 
pistol was said to have been found from the place of incident. After 
.completion of investigation charge sheet was filed by the Investigating 
B . Officer against both the accused. 
6. On committal, after framing charge, the trial court recorded 
evidence. Prosecution got examined PW-I Dr. D.S. Rathi, PW-2 MMHC 
Hari Chand, P_W-3 Constable Manoj Kumar, PW-4 Pappu, PW-5 
Surender Singh, PW-6 Amit Kumar, PW-7 Ram Nath, PW-8 Constable 
Ash Mohd., PW-9AS1 Jai Singh, PW-IOASIAmi Lal, PW-I I Naimuddin 
C · and PW-12 Inspector Raj Pal Singh. After putting the documentary and 
oral evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to the accused persons, the trial 
court found both the accused guilty of charge of offence punishable 
under Section 302/34 IPC. Accused Ajit @ Dara Singh was further 
found guilty of charge of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms 
D 
Act, 1959. They were awarded sentence, as already mentioned above. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
7. On appeal by the convicts, High Court agreed with the findings 
of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal before us 
through special leave. 
8. At the outset, we would like to mention that in substance it is a 
case of circumstantial evidence but for the evidence of two chance
witnesses, namely PW-4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh. PW-4 Pappu 
is a rikshaw puller who is resident of Sant Nagar Jhuggi in Farida&ad. 
PW-5 Surender Singh, a three wheeler driver, is resident of Railway 
Colony, Old Faridabad, It is relevai1t to mention here that the incident is 
said to have occurred near Air Force ground. It is further relevant to 
mention that the complainant Amil" Kumar (PW-6), his brother Deepak 
(deceased) and the-two accused/appellants are residents of N.l.T., 
Faridabad. It is not clear from the record as to how these chance 
witnesses (PW-4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh) who have stated 
that they heard altercation between the deceased and the two accused 
after midnight and thereafter heard· sound of fire, knew them .. In our 
opinion, the testimony of these witnesses cannot be said to be reliable· or 
trustworthy particularly when their statements are not corroborated from 
other evidence on record . 
. 9. Now, we come to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. 
The conclusions of the examination conducted in the Forcensic Science
PA WAN @ RAJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF 
887 
HARYANA [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karna\, are ·reproduced below from 
A 
Ex. PF: -
"RESULT 
(I) The countrymade pistol marked W /I (chambered for I 2 bore 
cartridges) is a firearm as defined in Arms Act 54 of 1959. 
B 
Its firing mechanism was not found in working order. 
(2) The countrymade pistol marked W II had been fired through. 
However, scientifically, the time of its last firing cannot be 
given. 
(3) The percussion cap of cartridge case marked C/l 0n which 
firing pin marks appear due to firing was found missing. 
Moreover, the firing mechanism of pistol W II was not found 
in working order. Therefore. no opinion could be formed 
regarding the linkage ofCll in respect of pistol W /I. 
( 4) One wooden piece and two metallic strips contained in parcel 
· No. ·m could form part of countrymade pistol contained in 
parcel No. VIII. 
(Emphasis supplied) 
In view of the conclusions given by Forensic Science Laboratory 
on points (I), (2) and. (3), quoted above, we are of the view that the 
prosecution story, as narrated by PW4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh, 
is highly doubtful. 
J 0. Apart from this, though the motive of crime is not necessarily 
required to be. proved, but in the case like the present one where the 
appellants are named on suspicion by informant PW-6 Amit Kumar in 
the First Information Report (which does not contain names of PW4 
Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh as witnesses
who had seen the 
occurrence), the motive appears to be relevant fact. PW-6 Amit Kumar 
has simply mentioned that the deceased had asked the two accused to 
waive of the remaining amount of~ 250/- from the loan of~ 10,000/-
taken by Gola but the same does not appear to be a convincing motive to 
commit the crime by the appellants. Prosecution has not examined Gola 
if he had taken loan of~ I 0,000/- and paid off the same minus the 
amount~ 250/-. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
888 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
11.- Even otherwise; in the First Information Report it is nowhere 
. mentioned why actually Deepak (deceased) had gone in his separate 
scooter with the two appellants from his house. 
12. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find that the trial 
·court as well as the High Court has erred in law in holding that the 
B 
charge against the two accused stood proved. 
13. In the light of appreciation of evidence, as above, we are of 
the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of offence 
punishable under Section 302/34 !PC against the two accused. We 
further hold that the charge of offence punishable under Section 25 of 
c 
the,Arms Act, 1959 against accused Ajit@Dara Singh is also not proved 
beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 
14. The appeal is allowed. Both the ac.cused, namely Pawan@ 
Rajinder Singh and Ajit@ Dara Singh, are acquitted of the charges. 
The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in conn~ction 
o 
with any other case. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal allowed.