SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Rajan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3904 of 2025 (@SLP(Crl.) No. 13881 of 2025 (Diary No. 43582 of 2018
Decided On : 02-09-2025
The key point of the provided legal document is that eyewitness accounts can be sufficient to affirm guilt in murder cases even in the absence of physical evidence linking the accused to the crime scene (!) (!) . The courts emphasize that credible eyewitness testimony, especially when corroborated and consistent, holds significant weight in establishing the accused's involvement (!) . Additionally, minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies do not necessarily undermine their reliability, provided the overall version appears truthful (!) (!) .
Furthermore, procedural delays in uploading judgments, even when substantial, do not automatically invalidate convictions if the evidence on record remains credible and unshaken (!) . The courts acknowledge the importance of timely justice but also recognize that delays alone do not necessarily compromise the integrity of a conviction, especially when the oral evidence is trustworthy (!) (!) .
In summary, the document underscores that credible eyewitness testimony can independently establish guilt, and procedural delays, while concerning, do not automatically lead to the overturning of judgments if the evidence is otherwise reliable (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the fir and eyewitness statement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. trial court's proceedings and verdict. (Para 6 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments regarding appellant's presence and evidence. (Para 22 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. state's argument on reliability of eyewitnesses. (Para 28 , 29 , 39) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and concerns about judgment delay. (Para 30 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 18-2-2016 in Criminal Appeal No.D-443-DB of 2003 by which the appeal filed by appellant – herein against the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by the Trial Court came to be dismissed.
4. It appears from the materials on record that a First Information Report came to be registered with the City Sirsa Police Station dated 22-7-1998 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) respectively and Sections 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT respectively. The FIR came to be registered by one Balbir Singh, an injured eyewitness to the incident.
5. The FIR reads thus:-
“The statement of Shri Balbir Singh son of Shri Chanan Singh Rajput resident of Dhudhiawali now residing at 14/949. Addl. A.D.C. Colony, that I am working as an agriculturist in village Dhudhiawali, Shiv Dutt Singh and Bishan Singh, the sons of my uncle (Tau) Narain Singh reside in A.D.C. Colony, Sirsa. Today in the morning, I had also arrived at Sirsa from village Dhudhiawali. I had gone to meet Shiv Dutt Singh and Bishan Singh in A.D.C. Colony, where Bishan Singh met in the house when I enquired from Bhishan Singh about the whereabout of Shiv Dutt, Bishan Singh had told me that Shiv Dutt has gone to National College, Sirsa to get admitted Amrinder Singh son of Amar Singh resident of band gate, Sirsa in B.A. Part-I and he asked me to accompany him there to meet him. I and Bishan Singh then reached at National college where Singh and Raj Kumar sons of Pokhar Dass, resident of Talwara Khurd came across on enquiry, Shiv Dutt Singh told that Amrinder Singh would get admission and he offered tea to us in the canteen thereupon, I Bishan Singh, Shiv Dutt, Sirsa and Raj Kumar proceeded to the canteen to take tea. At about 2.05. P.M. when we reached on the corner of building of Science block and Shiv Dutt, was going ahead of us and we were following him at some distance. Naresh Godara, resident of Kheowali carrying a DBBL gun of .12 bore in his hands, Vikas Kukna of D.C. Colony, Sirsa armed with a DBBL gun of .12 bore, Rajan son of Shao Ram, resident of Bajekan armed with a pistol and Rajdeep Singh son of Harbhagwan Singh resident of Canal colony, Sirsa armed with a sword arrived there from the opposite directions and on seeing Shiv Dutt Naresh Godara have exhorted him to be cautious that they would teach him a lesson for inflicting injuries to his brother Hanuman and for opposing them in the college elections. Thereupon, Ra- jan has fired a shot from his pistol at Shiv Dutt Singh but Shiv Dutt Singh escaped unhurt. Thereafter, Naresh Kumar and Vikas have fired one shot each from their respective guns simultaneously at Shiv Dutt Singh which hit him on the chest region and the abdominal region on the front side and on receiving the firearm injuries, Shiv Dutt Singh fell down on the ground, I, Bishan Singh and Raj Kumar raised cries for help and then Rajan along with his pistol, Naresh Godara along with his gun and Vikas along with his gun ran away from the spot and Rajdeep threw his sword at the spot and ran away. Naresh Godara in furtherance of common intention of Rajan Vikas and Rajdeep armed with firearms and sword have fired shots at Shiv Dutt Singh to take avenge for causing injuries to his brother Hanuman on account of which Shiv Dutt has been rendered injured. I and Raj Kumar have shifted him to Civil Hospital, Sirsa in the car of Naveen Kedia for treatment
Indrajeet Yadav vs. Santosh Singh and Another
Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors decided on 29-10-2020 [Para 23]
Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra :(2023) 13 SCC 365) [Para 34]
Krishna Mochi and Others v. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81 [Para 38]
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, (1984) 1 SCC 596 [Para 43
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158 [Para 43]
Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana
Ajay Singh and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.
Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil and Ors.
Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318 [Para 44]
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs. reported in (2001) 3 SCC 179 [Para 45]
Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of UP and Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 1039 [Para 45]
K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Patil C.A No. 6972/2022 dated 26.09.2022 [Para 47]
AI
Eyewitness accounts can affirm guilt in murder cases despite lack of physical evidence; procedural delays in judgment upload do not necessarily invalidate convictions.
(1) Supreme Court need not delve into each and every individual’s testimonies and instead only examine whether path adopted by Courts below is compromised by any manifest error.(2) Convictions on the....
The acquittal of the accused was upheld due to significant doubts regarding eyewitness credibility and procedural inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
(1) Murder, attempt to murder and rioting – When genesis and manner of incident itself are doubtful, benefit of doubt should always be in favour of accused.(2) Appreciation of evidence – While apprec....
Appellate court should not interfere with reasonable acquittal view despite alternate possibility, factoring FIR delay, night identification doubts, intoxication-enabled fall injuries, strained relat....
Convictions based on inconsistent witness testimony and insufficient evidence cannot stand; reliance on child witnesses requires careful scrutiny and corroboration.
In appeal against acquittal lacking reasons, re-appreciation permissible; no interference if Trial Court view sustainable despite evidentiary infirmities like hostile witnesses, FIR delay and absent ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.