SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 78916

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N. S. Shekhawat, H. S. Grewal, JJ
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar – Respondent
CRA-D-314-DBA-2003|CRR-563-2003



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Parmod Kumar, P.S. Ahluwalia, Simarpreet Sekhon, Arveen Sekhon, Parvesh, Akash Gehlawat
For the Respondents: S.S. Narula, Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Bhavpreet Singh Dhatt, Bhardwaj

An appellate court shall not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or untenable in law. Where the view taken by the trial court is plausible and supported by evidence, the appellate court must not substitute its own opinion.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120-B, 148, 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25 - Murder and Criminal Conspiracy - Acquittal - Reversal by Appellate Court - Principles for interference - Appellate Court must not substitute its view with that of trial Court unless judgment suffers from manifest illegality, perversity, or is wholly untenable - Where two views are possible and trial Court’s view is plausible, no interference is warranted. (Paras 23, 24)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Evidence - Plea of Alibi - Standard of proof - When accused prove presence elsewhere through official records, testimony of subject-matter experts, and institutional documentation, finding of acquittal based on such evidence is sustainable. (Paras 14, 15)

(C) Criminal Conspiracy - Burden of Proof - Must be established by direct or circumstantial evidence indicating meeting of minds - Mere speculation or inference without proof of agreement is insufficient to connect accused with core offence. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The State appealed against the acquittal of respondents in a murder case involving allegations of conspiracy and use of firearms. The respondents raised a plea of alibi, supported by extensive documentary evidence and testimony of departmental officers concerning their presence at a different location during the time of the occurrence. The trial Court had disbelieved the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses and the recovery of incriminating weapons, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the respondents had successfully established their plea of alibi through consistent official records and testimony of superiors. It further found the sole eye-witness’s testimony to be unnatural and unreliable, and the evidence regarding criminal conspiracy to be weak and uncorroborated. The trial Court’s reasoned assessment was found not to be perverse or illegal.

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the respondents was perverse; whether the plea of alibi was sufficiently proven; and whether the evidence of criminal conspiracy met the required standard of proof.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal if the lower court’s reasoning is plausible, as the burden lies on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution evidence is riddled with inconsistencies, particularly regarding the testimony of eye-witnesses, and the defence successfully demonstrates an alibi through empirical data, the finding of acquittal cannot be disturbed.

Result: Appeals dismissed; acquittal upheld.

Table of Content
1. summary of prosecution evidence, fir contents, and investigation details. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. establishment of alibi for accused through military service records. (Para 9 , 10 , 14)
3. competing arguments regarding acquittal, evidence, and alibi validity. (Para 11 , 12)
4. unreliability of sole eyewitness testimony and non-examination of material witnesses. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. failure to prove criminal conspiracy; scope of appellate interference in acquittal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

***

N.S.Shekhawat J.

1. This order shall dispose of above mentioned two cases i.e. CRA-D 314-DBA-2003 titled as “State of Haryana Vs. Suresh Kumar and others” and CRR-563-2003 titled as “Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others”, which have been filed against the common impugned judgment dated 16.10.2002, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonipat, whereby, the private respondents in both the cases were ordered to be acquitted by the trial Court.

2. During the pendency of the present appeal, respondent No.1- Suresh Kumar, respondent No.2, Ishwar, respondent No.6-Ram Singh and respondent No.7 Maha Singh in CRA-D-314-DBA-2003 had expired and the appeal against them already stood abated, vide order dated 26.09.2024.

3. The FIR (Ex.PE) in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement made by Ramesh son of Bhalle Ram and the same has been reproduced below:-

“Statement of Ramesh s/o Bhalle Ram, Jat R/o Ahulana aged 33 years. Stated that I am an agriculturist. My father has two brothers, out of whom eldest Sheoram has expired, younger to him is Duli Chand and the youngest is my father, Bhalle Ram. One son of my tau Duli Chand is Mahender, aged 46/47 years. Today in the morning, I had come to my field called Kallarwala khet. Drizzling started. To save myself from the drizzling, I was standing under a kikar tree near the road. Mahender S/o Duli Chand, Jat resident of Ahulana along with brother-in-law of my younger brother Ishwar, namely Devender S/o Hoshiar Singh, Jat resident of Bhawad, Police Station, Baroda sitting with him on his motor cycle Hero Honda No HR-06B/1888 were going to Gannaur from the village, who had come to offer the Diwali gifts to our house, reached in front of our Kallerwala khet at about 11.15 O' clock during day and seeing me, Mahender stopped his motor cycle and brother-in law of my brother, namely Devender got down from the motor cycle and Mahender remained seated on his motor cycle. I was talking with Devender when Anand S/o Ishwar, Yudhvir S/o Ishwar, Suresh S/o Ram Singh, caste Jat residents of Ahulana came travelling in white colour Esteem Car and parked the esteem car in front of motor cycle of Mahender Singh. In the meantime, within our view, Raj Kumar S/o Dharam Singh @ Mahal, Jat resident of Ahulana who was wearing black raincot and Bijender @ Kala S/o Ishwar Jat, resident of Ahulana who was a pilion rider came on Hero Honda of red colour motor cycle from the side of village Ahulana and stopped the motor cycle near the motor cycle of Mahender and Bijender @ Kala who was in possession of pistol or revolver fired direct shot on Mahender from behind. On hit by the shot, Mahender fell down in middle of the road with his motor cycle on left side. Raj Kumar parked his motor cycle and Bijender @ Kala fired 4/5 shots on my fallen brother Mahender. I and Devender tried to catch them, then Raj Kumar said that if you will come near, then I will shoot you also. Then Anand said in his raised voice that work is complete and run away. On saying this by Anand, Raj Kumar and Bijender @ Kala sat their motor cycle Hero Honda and Anand, Yudhvir and Suresh boarded in their esteem car and ran away towards Gannaur with their pistol and revolver. Then I and Devender saw Mahender but he had died after sustaining bullet shot wounds behind his left shoulder, on the right ear, right temple, under the right eye and on the forehead on the head from whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top