Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference by Appellate Court
-
Interference with acquittal can be made only where judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading/omission of material evidence, or when no two reasonable views are possible and only conclusion consistent with guilt arises.
-
If two views are possible, appellate court should not disturb acquittal.
(Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, relied on).
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302, 120-B, 143, 201 – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence
-
Motive: Alleged strained relations between deceased and Hemlata/Narpat, and land dispute with Bhanwar Singh, not proved by substantive evidence. Testimonies of PW-15 (son) and PW-24 (wife) negated prosecution’s case of motive. PW-12’s version found to be exaggerated and inconsistent with police statement.
-
Last Seen Theory: Testimonies of PW-8 and PW-20 unreliable due to inordinate delay (over a month) in disclosure and unnatural conduct.
-
Recoveries:
-
Chunni allegedly stained with blood recovered from Hemlata’s house — FSL report did not establish blood group; house was accessible, recovery considered concocted and inconsequential.
-
Maruti van allegedly used to transport body — blood stains inconclusive, no witness saw body being carried in vehicle.
-
Hotel registers — failed to establish link between accused and alleged contract killers.
-
Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 27 – Disclosure and Recovery
-
Disclosure statement (Exh. P-70) of accused Hemlata could not be used to prove motive. Section 27 permits only discovery of fact, not use of inculpatory narrative to establish motive.
Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 65-B – Electronic Records – Call Detail Records
-
Call detail records produced without mandatory S. 65-B certificate – inadmissible.
-
Reliance on handwritten note (Ex. P-53) without examining scribe impermissible.
-
Hence, telephonic conversation evidence linking accused to conspiracy was unproved in law.
Principle – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof
-
Prosecution must establish chain of circumstances by admissible and reliable evidence.
-
In absence of proved motive, credible “last seen” evidence, or valid recoveries, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
-
High Court’s acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence; no ground for Supreme Court interference.
Held
-
Appeals by State of Rajasthan dismissed.
-
Acquittal of respondents (Hemlata, Narpat Choudhary and Bhanwar Singh) confirmed.
-
Pending applications also dismissed
2025 INSC 1166
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
STATE OF RAJASTHAN .….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BHANWAR SINGH ETC. ETC. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellant-State of Rajasthan has filed
these appeals assailing the common final judgment
and order dated 14th December, 2011, passed by the
Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court at
Jodhpur1 in D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 95 of 2008,
122 of 2008, and 166 of 2008 filed under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732 by
the accused-respondents herein against the
judgment and order dated 10th January, 2008,
1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as, ‘CrPC’.
2
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Fast Track) No.2, Jodhpur3 in Sessions Case No.3
of 2006, whereby the accused-respondents had
been convicted for offences punishable under
Sections 302 read with Section 120-B, 143 and 201
of the Indian Penal Code, 18604 and were sentenced
as below: -
a. Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC:
Imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.
1,000/- each and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo imprisonment for
three months.
b. Section 143 IPC: Simple imprisonment for
a period of three months.
c. Section 201 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment
for a period of three years along with fine of
Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo imprisonment for
one month.
3. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide the
common impugned judgment and order dated 14th
December, 2011, allowed the individual criminal
3 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘trial Court’.
4 Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘IPC’.
3
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
appeals preferred by each of the accusedrespondents and set aside their conviction and
sentences imposed by the trial Court and acquitted
them of the charges by extending them the benefit of
doubt on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and
patent infirmities in the prosecution case.
4. We have heard and considered the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel
representing the appellant-State of Rajasthan and
the learned counsel representing the respondents
(acquitted accused) and have gone through the
impugned judgment and have minutely reappreciated the evidence available on record.
5. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution
is that on 23rd January, 2006, Navneet Sharma (PW15)5 lodged a missing report at Police Station
Mahamandir, Jodhpur at 12:40 P.M. alleging that
his father Shri Suresh Sharma had gone missing. It
was stated in the missing person report that Shri
Suresh Sharma had some ongoing disputes with
Vijay Punia and Gokalram pertaining to the lands
situated in the village Nandri District, Jodhpur. On
21st January, 2006, a telephone call made by a
5 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘complainant-Navneet (PW-15)’.
4
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
property dealer was received on the landline number
at the complainant’s residence at Luhar Colony,
Paota, and the same was attended by Shri Suresh
Sharma who conveyed to the caller that he would be
visiting the subject site on the next day. On the
following day, Shri Suresh Sharma left his house at
about 6:00 P.M. to visit the agricultural fields
located at the Village Banad, however, he did not
return, and no information was forthcoming
regarding his whereabouts. On the morning of 23rd
January, 2006, the complainant-Navneet (PW-15)
was informed by Dhanna Ram (PW-11) that while he
was sitting at the shop of Ratanlal, he had seen Shri
Suresh Sharma proceeding towards Banad. A
missing person case was registered, and inquiry was
assigned to Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.
6. While the action upon the missing person
report was being contemplated, a message was
received at the Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur
at about 12:50 P.M. regarding the discovery of a
human dead body lying between villages Jajiwal
Gahlotan and Jajiwal Bhatiyan.
7. Upon receiving this information, the
complainant-Navneet (PW-15) immediately rushed
5
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
to the spot along with the police personnel and
found the dead body of his father Shri Suresh
Sharma6 lying on the ground. The police personnel
from the Police Station Dangiawas were present at
the spot in advance. The complainant-Navneet (PW15) noticed that the hands of the deceased-Shri
Suresh had been tied behind his back with an iron
wire, and his legs had been fastened with help of a
piece of cloth. One shoe was missing and there were
visible signs of efforts made to efface the identity by
crushing the face. The neck was inflamed with red
marks.
8. Pursuant to recovery of the dead body, FIR No.
7 of 2006 came to be registered at the Police Station
Dangiyawas at the instance of the complainantNavneet (PW-15) for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The usual course of
investigation was undertaken. The dead body was
subjected to inquest proceedings and subsequently
forwarded to the hospital for postmortem
examination.
9. The Medical Board, comprising Dr. V.K.
Malhotra (PW-23), Dr. Yogiraj and Dr. Rajesh Vyas,
6 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘deceased- Shri Suresh’.
6
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased-Shri
Suresh and issued the postmortem report (Exh. P35) taking note of about 20 injuries on the dead
body, and the cause of death was opined to be
antemortem strangulation.
10. The accused-respondents were arrested, and
upon conclusion of investigation, a chargesheet
came to be submitted against them under Section
173 (2) CrPC for offences punishable under Section
302, 201 and 120-B IPC.
11. Since the offence punishable under Section
302 IPC was triable exclusively by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed for trial to the
Court of Sessions, and charges were framed against
the accused-respondents in the following terms: -
“Firstly - it is alleged against you that with
intent to commit murder of Shri Suresh
Sharma, you hatched conspiracy with contract
killers from U.P. for murdering Suresh Sharma
and committed murder of Suresh Sharma. Your
aforesaid act is punishable under Section 120-
B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, which is in my cognizance.
Secondly - it is alleged against you that with
intent to commit murder of Suresh Sharma,
you formed unlawful assembly within 5 or more
than 5 persons by having meeting or by having
conversation over telephone and in furtherance
of your common intention, you shared your
7
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
roles, which is an offence punishable under
Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and the
same is in my cognizance.
Thirdly - it is alleged against you that during
any time between on 22.01.2006 and
23.01.2006, you committed murder of Suresh
Sharma, Hemlata and Narpat Seervi in house
plot No.111, Tirupati Nagar, Banad Road,
Jodhpur and having committed this act in
criminal conspiracy along with the members of
unlawful assembly and your silence in this
regard, is an offence punishable under Section
302 read with Section 149 or 150 of the Indian
Penal Code, which is in my knowledge.
Fourth - it is alleged against you that after
committing the murder of Suresh Sharma at
the time, date and place mentioned in aforesaid
charge No.3, you carried the dead body of
deceased Suresh Sharma in van of accused
Narpat Seervi and put the dead body near the
road at Jajiwala Gehlotan in order to escape
from the crime, and which is punishable under
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and the
same is in my cognizance.”
12. The accused-respondents denied the charges
and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 37
witnesses (PW-1 to PW-37) and exhibited 102
documents (Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-102) along with 29
articles (Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-29) to prove its case.
13. Upon being examined under Section 313 CrPC,
and when asked to explain the circumstances
appearing against them in the prosecution case, the
8
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
accused-respondents claimed to be innocent and
alleged to have been falsely implicated. However,
they did not lead any evidence in defence.
14. Upon hearing the arguments of both sides and
appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court
found the accused-respondents guilty of charges
and proceeded to convict and sentence them as
mentioned above7 vide judgment and order dated
10th January, 2008.
15. The trial Court attributed different theories of
motive to the accused-respondents, Hemlata and
Narpat Choudhary on the one hand, and Bhanwar
Singh on the other hand. One of the alleged motives
was that the deceased-Shri Suresh used to visit the
house of respondent-Hemlata frequently, and
because of that she and her husband, Narpat
Choudhary, were perturbed and intended to get rid
of him. As regards respondent-Bhanwar Singh, it
was held that he had some ongoing land dispute
with one Sayri Devi (PW-12). The deceased-Shri
Suresh took sides of Sayri Devi (PW-12) and
threatened respondent-Bhanwar Singh with dire
consequences and hence Bhanwar Singh bore a
7 Supra para 2.
9
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
grudge against the deceased-Shri Suresh. Fuelled
by the aforesaid motives, the accused-respondents
allegedly knitted a criminal conspiracy to kill the
deceased-Shri Suresh. To execute the nefarious
plan, they hired professional killers from Uttar
Pradesh with the connivance of Dhanesh, who is
said to be the brother of respondent-Hemlata.
16. As per the prosecution, the professional killers
hired by the accused-respondents visited Jodhpur
on two occasions and stayed at two different hotels
which were facilitated by respondent-Narpat
Choudhary. On the fateful evening, the deceasedShri Suresh was lured to the residence of
respondent-Hemlata where he was strangled to
death. Thereafter, the dead body was placed in a
Maruti van owned by respondent-Narpat Choudhary
and was abandoned on the roadside after making
efforts to efface the identity in order to escape
detection. The trial Court arrived at the following
conclusions qua respondent-Hemlata:-
“(i) the accused with the aid of her brother
Dhanesh called deceased Suresh Sharma at her
residence with a pretext to visit a land site for
some interested party;
10
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
(ii) all the accused committed murder of Shri
Suresh Sharma by strangulation after beating
him;
(iii) no evidence is available on record to
disclose that the deceased went to any other
place or was seen alive after parking his scooter
in front of accused Hemlata’s house; and
(iv) the stole (chunni) recovered from the house
of this accused was stained with human blood
and no explanation is given to satisfy
availability of that.”
17. For drawing an inference pertaining to motive,
the trial Court relied upon the document (Exh. P-70)
which was a disclosure made by respondentHemlata about the situs of the crime. Manifestly,
the use of the said document was limited to the
extent permitted under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 18728, and inculpatory narrative
recited therein could not have been used to draw
any inference regarding motive, which was required
to be established from substantive evidence.
18. Be that as it may, we may note that the
complainant-Navneet (PW-15), in unequivocal terms
stated that the deceased-Shri Suresh and
respondent-Hemlata were maintaining good
relations and there was no dispute or tension
8 For short, ‘Evidence Act’.
11
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
between them. The witness (PW-15) denied having
knowledge about any kind of exploitation or
victimisation of respondent-Hemlata by his father.
19. Meena Sharma (PW-24) wife of the deceasedShri Suresh also did not state anything which could
give rise to an inference of motive against
respondent-Hemlata. Rather she stated that
respondents-Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary used
to visit the deceased-Shri Suresh in the capacity of
his clients and there was no other relation between
them.
20. Nevertheless, the trial Court held that the
accused-respondents called the deceased-Shri
Suresh to the house of respondent-Hemlata, acting
in furtherance of their prior plan to eliminate him.
The prosecution attempted to establish that
Dhanesh, stated to be the brother of respondentHemlata, made a telephonic call on 22nd January,
2006, at around 5:00 P.M. on the landline number
of the deceased-Shri Suresh and invited him to the
residence of respondent-Hemlata. The aforesaid call
was attended by Meenkashi (PW-27), being the
sister-in-law of Meena Sharma (PW-24).
12
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
21. It may be noted that neither Meena Sharma
(PW-24) nor Meenkashi (PW-27) had any idea about
the identity of the person who made this call who
was admittedly a stranger to them. These ladies did
not claim to have ever met the caller before. Rather,
we find that there is no substantive evidence
whatsoever on record to prove that any person by
the name Dhanesh, alleged to be the brother of
respondent-Hemlata, had actually called on the
landline number operational in the house of the
deceased-Shri Suresh. If at all, the prosecution was
desirous to prove this fact, the relevant call detail
records supported by the certificate under Section
65-B of the Evidence Act had to be brought on
record and proved as per law. However, this
evidence is totally lacking from the side of the
prosecution.
22. Heavy reliance was placed by the trial Court on
the prosecution theory that the deceased-Shri
Suresh parked his scooter and was seen moving
towards the house of respondent-Hemlata after
having left his home in the evening of 22nd January,
2006. The said evidence was given by Hukum Singh
(PW-8) and Dharmender Singh (PW-20).
13
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
23. Hukum Singh (PW-8) was employed with
Dharmender Singh (PW-20) and was also an
attesting witness to the inquest memo (Exh. P-9)
that was drawn on 23rd January, 2006, after
discovery of the dead body of Shri Suresh Sharma.
Dharmender Singh (PW-20), an electrician by
occupation, deposed on oath that on 22nd January,
2006, at about 06:30 P.M. to 07:00 P.M., he and his
assistant Hukum Singh (PW-8) saw the deceasedShri Suresh parking his scooter in front of
respondent-Hemlata’s house. However, neither of
the witnesses stated that they had actually seen the
deceased-Shri Suresh entering the house of
respondent-Hemlata. In addition, it is a matter of
record that Hukum Singh (PW-8) divulged this
information to the police on 28th February, 2006,
i.e., after one month and six days from the date of
occurrence. The fact regarding the presence of the
deceased-Shri Suresh near the house of respondentHemlata just before his death was far too important
so as to have escaped the memory of the said
witness. If at all, Hukum Singh (PW-8) had seen any
such event, he would not be expected to remain
silent and, in natural course, he would have
14
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
promptly disclosed about this important
circumstance to the police officials when he signed
the inquest memo (Exh. P-9) on 23rd January, 2006.
24. The failure of the witness (PW-8) in not
disclosing this important fact to the police for
almost one month and six days of the incident
assumes great importance because he was amongst
the first few to have seen the dead body of the
deceased-Shri Suresh immediately after its
discovery. The High Court held that the fact
pertaining to the movement of the deceased-Shri
Suresh near the house of respondents-Hemlata and
Narpat Choudhary few hours prior to his death was
very significant and in normal course of events, any
person of ordinary prudence would have disclosed
this to the relatives of the deceased-Shri Suresh and
the police as an immediate reaction after seeing the
body of the deceased-Shri Suresh. Thus, the High
Court found the conduct of Hukum Singh (PW-8) in
keeping silent for more than a month to be highly
suspicious and rightly so, in our opinion.
25. Dharmender Singh (PW-20) stated that he
came to know about the murder of the deceasedShri Suresh after a gap of 20-25 days and that his
15
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
Assistant Hukum Singh (PW-8) never told him about
the said incident. The witness (PW-20) visited the
residence of the deceased-Shri Suresh to offer
condolences after 20-25 days. On that day, for the
first time, he disclosed to the complainant-Navneet
(PW-15), about seeing the deceased-Shri Suresh
near the house of respondent-Hemlata on the
evening of 22nd January, 2006. The complainantNavneet (PW-15), in turn, asked the witness (PW-20)
to convey this information to the investigating
agency and pursuant thereto, the statement of the
witness (PW-20) came to be recorded as late as 28th
February, 2006. Notably, neither Hukum Singh
(PW-8) nor Dharmender Singh (PW-20) bothered to
convey this material fact to the police officials and
chose to remain silent for a long time which is a
clear indicator of their unnatural conduct. Thus, it
is our firm opinion that the High Court was perfectly
justified in discarding the testimony of Hukum
Singh (PW-8) and Dharmender Singh (PW-20),
finding their conduct to be doubtful.
26. The next circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution was that of recovery of a chunni (stole)
having blood stains of human origin at the instance
16
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
of respondent-Hemlata in presence of panch
witnesses Rameshwar (PW-16), Ramniwas (PW-9)
and Babulal (PW-10). It is noteworthy to mention
that Ramniwas (PW-9) and Rameshwar (PW-16)
were not the residents of the vicinity, while Babulal
(PW-10) was a police constable. Suffice it to say that
otherwise also, the said recovery is insignificant and
does not connect respondent-Hemlata with the
murder of the deceased-Shri Suresh in any manner.
This is primarily so because no opinion was
obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory
regarding the group of blood found on the chunni.
Unless the chunni was shown to be having the same
blood group as that of the deceased-Shri Suresh,
the recovery thereof even with blood stains of
human origin would be inconsequential and cannot
link respondent-Hemlata to the crime. Moreover, the
High Court, observed that the chunni was recovered
on 27th January, 2006, i.e., 5 days after the
incident, during which period the house was under
the occupation of respondents-Hemlata and Narpat
Choudhary. The High Court found it strange that
the accused-respondents despite having full control
over the house, did not make any effort to remove or
17
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
destroy the evidence pertaining to the crime
allegedly committed by them. As per the High Court,
fact that the chunni was recovered from the house
which remained unlocked till the police brought
back respondents-Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary
for inspection rendered the recovery under Section
27 of the Evidence Act irrelevant, as it was
effectively recovered from a place accessible to all
and sundry.
27. The prosecution also relied upon some
additional circumstances in its effort to connect
respondent-Narpat Choudhary with the crime.
These circumstances were regarding the recovery of
the visitors entry register from Hotel Taj and Hotel
Raneja, Jodhpur based on the disclosures made by
respondent-Narpat Choudhary; call details records
purportedly proving the telephonic conversations
between respondents-Bhanwar Singh and Narpat
Choudhary just before and after the commission of
the crime; recovery of the Maruti van in which the
dead body of the deceased-Shri Suresh was
allegedly transported and the presence of blood
stains on the seat cover and the mats of the said
vehicle.
18
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
28. The hotel registers were seized on the premise
that the accommodation for hired killers from Uttar
Pradesh was arranged in these hotels by
respondent-Narpat Chaudhary. The High Court,
after threadbare discussion of evidence held that the
entries made in the registers, in no manner,
connected respondent-Narpat Choudhary with the
persons (hired killers) who allegedly stayed at these
two hotels. The prosecution failed to lead any
evidence to establish the fact that respondentNarpat Choudhary had facilitated the stay of the socalled hired killers in the aforesaid hotels. We find
the said finding of the High Court to be
unimpeachable.
29. So far as the recovery of the Maruti van is
concerned, the same also did not provide any
succour to the prosecution’s case. No witness saw
the dead body of Shri Suresh Sharma being moved
in the said vehicle. The blood stains allegedly found
at various places in the vehicle did not give any
positive conclusion for blood grouping during
serological examination. Hence, the said recovery
also becomes inconsequential.
19
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
30. Regarding the call details records, the
prosecution did not lead any evidence whatsoever to
prove the ownership/subscription of the mobile
numbers which were allegedly used to hatch the
conspiracy. Furthermore, no certificate under
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was produced on
record to prove these so-called incriminating call
detail records as per the mandate of law. The High
Court also found that the cell numbers, which were
sought to be connected to the accused-respondents
on the basis of the information provided by the
Customer Care Executive, Reliance Web World,
Jodhpur vide document (Ex. P-53), were not derived
from an electronic record but were present in form
of a handwritten note. The scribe of the said
document, namely, Ms. Ragini Vyas was not
examined by the prosecution and hence, the recitals
contained therein were not proved in accordance
with law.
31. We are of the firm opinion that the said finding
of the High Court is unassailable. Taken together,
both the circumstances, i.e., non-production of the
certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act,
and the call detail records being presented through
20
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
a handwritten note without examining the scribe
thereof would lead to an inescapable conclusion
that the call details were not proved as per law.
32. We give our full imprimatur to the conclusion
drawn by the High Court in the impugned judgment
that the recovery of chunni was concocted and
planted. The other recoveries effected by the
investigating officer were insignificant. The theory
of motive and last seen was nothing but a
conjectural story. Thus, there is no evidence worth
the name on the record of the case so as to connect
respondents-Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary with
the murder of the deceased-Shri Suresh. None of
the three alleged incriminating circumstances i.e.,
motive, last seen theory and recoveries were proved
by leading an admissible or reliable evidence.
33. Thus, the High Court was fully justified in
holding that no satisfactory evidence was led by the
prosecution so as to establish complicity of
respondents-Hemlata and Narpat Choudhary for the
alleged murder of the deceased-Shri Suresh.
34. Qua respondent-Bhanwar Singh, the
prosecution had projected the theory of conspiracy
through the evidence of Sayri Devi (PW-12). The trial
21
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
Court held that respondent-Bhanwar Singh was in
unauthorised possession of certain plots of land
owned by Sayri Devi (PW-12) and the deceased-Shri
Suresh extended a helping hand to the said lady
and that is why, respondent-Bhanwar Singh was
bearing a grudge against the deceased-Shri Suresh.
The prosecution also sought to connect the
respondent-Narpat Choudhary through the call
detail records but the said evidence again suffers
from the same infirmity regarding the
inadmissibility of the call detail records as
concluded above.
9
35. We have perused the statement of Sayri Devi
(PW-12) closely. Although, in her examination-inchief, the witness (PW-12) stated that respondentBhanwar Singh had extended a threat to kill the
deceased-Shri Suresh but on a perusal of her crossexamination, we find that she admitted that the
land which had fallen to her share had been sold to
respondent-Bhanwar Singh. However, she corrected
herself saying that respondent-Bhanwar Singh to
whom the land was sold, was another Bhanwar
Singh who resided in BJS. Total 18 bighas of land
9 Supra paras 30-31.
22
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
were sold to said Bhanwar Singh of BJS and on this
land, houses had been constructed. Thus, from the
tenor of evidence of Sayri Devi (PW-12), all that can
be inferred is that she was involved in some land
disputes with respondent-Bhanwar Singh. The
witness was confronted with her police statement
(Exh. D-6) wherein the following glaring omissions
were elicited: -
i. The deceased-Shri Suresh had extended help
to her in order to resolve the disputes with
respondent-Bhanwar Singh.
ii. The alleged threat given by the deceasedShri Suresh to respondent-Bhanwar Singh for
letting go of the disputed land.
iii. The respondent-Bhanwar Singh had
threatened the said witness (PW-12) that if her
Advocate, i.e., deceased-Shri Suresh got the
house vacated then, first her Advocate would
be killed and thereafter the witness (PW-12)
herself would be eliminated.
Manifestly, the theory of motive and threat
attributed to respondent-Bhanwar Singh by the
witness (PW-12) in her examination-in-chief are in
form of gross exaggerations and improvements from
23
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
her previous statement (Exh.-D6) and hence, the
evidence of this witness (PW-12) was rightly
discarded and disbelieved by the High Court.
36. Other than the evidence of the so-called threat
given by respondent-Bhanwar Singh in presence of
Sayri Devi (PW-12), which the High Court found to
be highly doubtful and exaggerated, no other
evidence was led by the prosecution to link
respondent-Bhanwar Singh with the alleged murder
of the deceased-Shri Suresh.
37. Suffice it to say that mere threat to inflict harm
may constitute an incriminating circumstance but
in isolation, the said circumstance would fall
woefully short of proof of conspiracy to commit
murder.
38. Having threadbare examined the entire
evidence on record, we are of the firm opinion that
the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the
accused-respondents is based on apropos
appreciation and evaluation of evidence and hence,
does not warrant inference in this appeal against
acquittal.
24
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
39. This Court in Babu Sahebagouda
Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka10, reiterated
following principles governing interference by the
appellate Court with a judgment of acquittal:-
“41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope
of interference by an appellate court for reversing the
judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in
favour of the accused has to be exercised within the
four corners of the following principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from
patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider material evidence on
record; and
41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and
only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is
possible from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent
findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court.”
40. Applying the above-mentioned principles, we
are of the firm view that there exist no valid grounds
that would justify upsetting and reversing the
acquittal of the respondents. On a careful
consideration of the evidence and materials
available on record, we find no infirmity or
10 (2024) 8 SCC 149.
25
CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1954-1956 OF 2013
perversity in the impugned judgment and order
dated 14th December, 2011 warranting interference.
41. As a consequence of the above discussion, we
do not find any merit in these appeals which are
dismissed as such.
42. In view of dismissal of the appeals, no orders
are required to be passed in the application for
impleadment and is accordingly dismissed as such.
43. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
...….……………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
…...…………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 26, 2025.
