1. Double murder — Allegation of driving the getaway vehicle — Summoning of accused under Section 319, Cr.P.C. (Para 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 85-86 of 2026 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.)...........of 2026] [Diary No. 46882 of 2024]
Decided On : 06-01-2026
Important Points
Acquittal necessitates clear and compelling evidence of active participation in a crime; mere association is insufficient to uphold a conviction.
Subject
Criminal Law - Acquittal
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 - Acquittal of accused - Appellant's conviction affirmed by High Court reversed since there was insufficient evidence to establish involvement in a double murder - Key witness did not substantiate any direct action by the appellant, while those identified the true perpetrators - Lack of incriminating evidence against the appellant led to acquittal. (Paras 3, 6, 11)
(B) Criminal Law - Evidentiary requirements - For conviction, it must be established that the accused participated directly in the crime, and mere presence or association does not implicate guilt if there is a lack of proof of active involvement. (Paras 6, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused in a double murder; however, the evidence presented was mainly circumstantial and lacked solid corroborative testimony implicating him in the critical actions of the crime.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's active involvement in the murders, nor was any direct evidence found tying him to the crime scenes or actions.
Issues: The main issue was whether there existed substantive evidence linking the appellant to the murders beyond mere presence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence beyond ambiguous statements, reinforcing that ambiguity cannot suffice for conviction when the appellant's role was unproven.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
(B) Criminal Law - Evidentiary requirements - For conviction, it must be established that the accused participated directly in the crime, and mere presence or association does not implicate guilt if there is a lack of proof of active involvement. (Paras 6, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused in a double murder; however, the evidence presented was mainly circumstantial and lacked solid corroborative testimony implicating him in the critical actions of the crime.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's active involvement in the murders, nor was any direct evidence found tying him to the crime scenes or actions.
Issues: The main issue was whether there existed substantive evidence linking the appellant to the murders beyond mere presence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence beyond ambiguous statements, reinforcing that ambiguity cannot suffice for conviction when the appellant's role was unproven.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : M. Shoeb Alam, Anmol Kheta, Tanya Srivastava
For the Respondents: Siddhant Sharma, Vikram Choudhary, Prafull Bhardwaj
For the Appellants : M. Shoeb Alam, Anmol Kheta, Tanya Srivastava
For the Respondents: Siddhant Sharma, Vikram Choudhary, Prafull Bhardwaj
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution relied on eyewitness identification of the driver; Defense contended lack of incriminating evidence and non-cooperation of witnesses during investigation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Material omissions in Section 161 statements, lack of connection to the vehicle, and history of family animosity undermine the prosecution's case. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Conviction cannot be sustained based on vague testimony and material omissions in police statements when no direct incriminating evidence or overt act is established. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 )
5. Criminal appeal allowed — Conviction set aside — Appellant acquitted. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. What is the legal significance of a witness omitting an overt act in their Section 161 CrPC statement but mentioning it during court testimony?
Such omissions are considered fatal to the prosecution's case, particularly when the accused was not arrayed initially and was summoned later under Section 319 CrPC, as it suggests an improvement in testimony. (Para 7 )
7. Does the mere allegation of driving a vehicle used by assailants suffice for conviction without evidence of an overt act?
No, a vague statement of driving the vehicle, without an established connection to the owner or evidence of a direct overt act in the crime proper, is insufficient to uphold a conviction. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
8. How does a documented history of animosity between the families of the accused and the victims affect the evaluation of evidence?
A history of mutual animosity and vengeful criminal implications between families can lead the court to view eyewitness testimonies with caution, especially when they are vague or inconsistent. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State were ad idem that the impugned judgment is slightly in-comprehendable; a remand would have been ideal. But, once the conviction by the Trial Court was reversed and the accused acquitted by the High Court, then a remand was made in which the impugned judgment affirming the conviction was passed, which has persuaded us to go into the merits. The offense is of the year 1999, a double murder having occurred on 14.10.1999 at about 06:00 pm and an FIR having been registered at 10:15 am on the very next day. Only one of the accused is in appeal before us, who was alleged to be the driver of the vehicle in which the assailants came and whose role in the crime proper, as we will presently see, was not fully established considering the entire circumstances.
4. We looked into the records and heard the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Shoeb Alam appearing for the appellant and Mr. Siddhant Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State.
5. Briefly stated, both the murders occurred on 14.10.1999, when the assailants were alleged to have come in a Tata Mobile 207 of blue colour and near the bus stand at Village Poonia, Shingara Singh son of Ujagar Singh @ Jagar Singh was shot by Sukhdev Singh @ Deba and Dhalwinder Singh @ Bhinder. The two accused, other than the appellant, were armed with .315 bore rifle. The appellant herein, Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh was alleged to be the driver of the vehicle. The son having been shot dead in front of his father, it is the testimony of the father, PW-7, that he immediately boarded a bus, to inform his people and on reaching home, he found his wife and daughter-in-law crying aloud, apprising him of the murder of the other son, Balkar Singh, by the very same accused, when the deceased was coming back to his home in his scooter. The dead body of the victim was kept in the neighboring house where he was shot dead. There too the appellant was accused to have been driving the Tata Mobile, in which the other accused were travelling.
6. The prosecution went to trial producing two key witnesses PW-7 and PW-10, the father of the persons murdered and the wife of one of the brothers murdered. The recoveries were with respect to the other accused and not the appellant herein. The learned Government Advocate pointed out that the other accused are absconding and hence, the consideration may be confined to the appellant herein.
7. On going through the evidence of the key witnesses, we find that PW-7, the father though spoke of the appellant having driven the vehicle, did not speak of any overt act on the part of the appellant resulting in a direct involvement in the crime proper. The recorded testimony of PW-7 indicates that he only identified the other two accused standing in the dock, as the persons who shot his son in the first incident. The narration indicates that he also spoke of the appellant having dragged the son before he was shot by the other two. In cross-examination, he was specifically confronted with the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) and the omission in the same of a statement of the appellant having alighted and dragged his son having been recorded by the police. The omission is fatal when we consider that the appellant was not arrayed at the first instance and was summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. by order dated 24.08.2000 of the Trial Court.
8. PW-10, the wife of the deceased who was shot dead later, projected as an eyewitness spoke only of the appellant having driven the vehicle. She has identified the appellant along with the other accused in the dock. Pertinent is the fact that there was no statement recorded of the said witness by the police at the first instance, after the inquest was carried out. They were admittedly pres
