2026 INSC 726 Page 1 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2013

DIDAR SINGH @ DARI …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 786 OF 2017

RANJEET SINGH @ JEETA …APPELLANT( S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. These two appeals impugn common judgment and

order of the High Court

1 dated 06.12.2012 passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 2008, whereby the appeal

of the appellants against the judgment and order of

the Trial Court

2, dated 27.11.2008, in Sessions Case

No.32 of 2008, convicting and sentencing the

1

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

2

Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal

Page 2 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860

3, was dismissed.

Facts

2. On 25.05.2004, at 09:45 AM, PW -1, father of the

deceased, lodged a first information report ( for short,

FIR) at Police Station Assandh, inter alia, alleging that

on 24.05.2004 at about 08:00 PM Ranjeet alias Jeeta

(Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017) and

Didar Singh (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1148

of 2013) came, and took his son Mohinder (the

deceased) on their motorcycle. The deceased did not

return thereafter. The next morning, when PW-1 and

members of his family went looking for the deceased,

they found the dead body of the deceased lying face

up in a field owned by Sardar Baksha Singh, near the

bus stand on GT Road, Karnal, at village Thari.

Injuries were noticed on the head and there were

scratches on the toe and legs, indicating that the body

had been dragged. In the FIR suspicion was expressed

3

IPC

Page 3 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

against the appellants and one Kaka (nephew of

Ranjeet).

3. The third accused Kaka was declared a juvenile, and

therefore, his trial was separated. Later, he was found

not guilty.

4. In so far as the appellants are concerned, they were

tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and

201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

5. In the trial, prosecution led evidence to prove few

circumstances to bring home the charge(s) framed

against the appellants. Those circumstances were:

(i) The accused-appellants took the deceased from

home in the evening, between 7.30 and 8.00 PM,

of 24.05.2004 on a motorcycle whereafter the

deceased was not seen alive and his body was

found in the fields next morning. Besides,

accused-appellants gave no explanation as to

when they parted company of the deceased.

(ii) A damaged red colour Yamaha motorcycle and

two pairs of chappals were found lying in the

fields of Kulwant Singh. One pair of chappal was

Page 4 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

identified to be that of the deceased and the

motorcycle was proved to have been purchased

by Ranjeet i.e., one of the appellants.

(iii) Post arrest, the accused suffered a disclosure

statement based on which the crime scene was

constructed and another Honda motorcycle was

recovered which was allegedly used for carrying

the dead body of the deceased from the place

where the deceased was killed to the place where

the body was dumped.

(iv) Accused-appellants had motive to kill the

deceased as they suspected the deceased of

providing information to the police regarding

their involvement in trade of contraband

products i.e., poppy husk. The police record

disclosed that appellant Ranjeet Singh was

accused of an offence under The Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

4 and

Didar Singh had suffered conviction under

Section 294 IPC.

4

NDPS Act

Page 5 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

6. Based on the above circumstances and upon finding

that though the accused had denied the incriminating

circumstances appearing against them, they had

offered no explanation either in their statement under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

5

or in the defence evidence as to when they parted

company of the deceased, the Trial Court convicted

the appellants under Sections 302 / 34 of IPC.

However, the appellants were acquitted of the charge

under Section 201/34 of IPC.

7. Aggrieved by their conviction, the appellants preferred

Criminal Appeal No. 941-DB of 2008 in the High

Court which stood dismissed by the impugned

judgment and order.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have perused the records.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants

9. Aggrieved by their conviction and dismissal of their

appeal, on behalf of the appellants it was submitted:

5

CrPC

Page 6 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

(a) No missing report or information about

deceased being taken from home and of not

returning by the night was given on

24.05.2004. Even the FIR was lodged with

delay, at about 9.45 PM, on 25.05.2004

despite the body of the deceased being

discovered in the early morning of 25.05.2004.

(b) The statement in the FIR that the dead body

of the deceased appeared to have been

dragged to the spot raises doubt about the FIR

being contrived, and lodged after consultation

with the police.

(c) There was no reason for the killers to remove

the body of the deceased from near the

motorcycle to the spot. Rather, it appears to

be a case where the deceased died in a road

accident, and after his body was found in the

morning it was shifted to the spot to contrive

a story that the deceased was murdered by the

accused-appellants. Besides, if the accused

were keen to remove the body from near the

Page 7 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

motorcycle they would not have left the

chappals of the deceased behind. The High

Court overlooked all these vital circumstances

while analysing and evaluating the evidence.

(d) Even the last seen circumstance was not

satisfactorily proved. It is a very weak piece of

evidence which alone cannot sustain a

conviction. Moreover, there was a large time-

gap between the deceased being last seen with

the accused and discovery of his body far away

from the place where they were last seen

together.

(e) Injuries found on the body of the deceased

could have been caused in an accident by

falling on a hard surface while riding a

motorcycle as is the opinion of Dr. S.C. Nawal

(PW7). Moreover, the motorcycle was found

damaged. Therefore, after the accident, upon

discovering the body, the prosecution story

was contrived in consultation with the police

to nail the accused, and to lend credence to

Page 8 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

the story, the body of the deceased was

dragged and shifted to another place.

(f) The High Court as well as the Trial Court had

overlooked an important aspect of the case,

which is, that, according to PW1 and PW4, the

deceased had left the house on or about 07:30

- 08:00 PM after having meals. The autopsy

report reveals that the stomach of the

deceased was empty. Post meal, stomach

empties in about 4 to 6 hours. Thus, there was

huge time-gap between last seen and probable

time of death and, therefore, intervening

circumstances cannot be ruled out. Besides,

the autopsy report does not report presence of

faecal matter in the large intestines. It only

shows presence of foul smelling gas. This

suggests that the death may have occurred in

the wee hours of the morning and certainly

not within a short span of time when the

deceased was allegedly last seen alive with the

accused.

Page 9 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

(g) In a case based on circumstantial evidence,

motive assumes importance. Except for the

statement of PW-4 that the accused suspected

the deceased of leaking out information of

their illicit acts to the police, there is no cogent

material to prove the motive for the crime.

Besides, if the deceased was leaking

information against the accused to the police

he would not have gone with the accused.

Admittedly, there is no evidence that the

accused forcibly took away the deceased from

home. Thus, on the face of it prosecution

story appears improbable.

(h) The so-called disclosure statement to

construct the crime scene and which led to

discovery of another motor cycle used for

carrying the dead body, is of no consequence.

Because, firstly, the alleged place of murder is

adjacent to the place where the damaged

motorcycle and chappals were found and

already seized, therefore there was no

Page 10 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

discovery of any fact; and, secondly, the other

motorcycle could not be linked to the crime by

any evidence, forensic or ocular.

(i) There is no recovery of the murder weapon.

Even the blood-stained clothes of the accused

were not recovered to link them to the crime.

(j) The FSL team and finger print expert had gone

to the spot along with the Investigating Officer,

but did not collect any sample, though it

collected samples of blood-stained earth from

the spot.

(k) Based on the above submissions, it was

contended that neither the circumstances

were proved beyond reasonable doubt nor

they were of conclusive nature and tendency;

besides, if put together, they do not constitute

a chain so complete as to reasonably infer that

it was the accused and no one else who

committed the murder. Thus, according to the

appellants’ counsel, there was no justification

to convict the appellants.

Page 11 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent

10. Per contra, on behalf of the Respondent-State, it

was argued that PW-1 had established that the

deceased was taken from home by the appellants on

their motorcycle. Thereafter the deceased was not

seen alive. In the morning, the body of the deceased

was found which reflected injuries making out a case

of homicide. Chappals of the deceased were found

near the motorcycle of one of the accused. Accident

theory is ruled out because there was a post mortem

injury. The post mortem injury could be caused due

to dragging the body. Therefore, in absence of any

explanation as to when the accused parted company

of the deceased, conviction of the accused cannot be

faulted. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be

dismissed.

Analysis

11. As the prosecution case rests on circumstantial

evidence, it would be useful to remind ourselves of the

conditions that must be fulfilled before a conviction

can be sustained on circumstantial evidence. In the

Page 12 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

oft-quoted decision of this Court in Sharad

Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

6

it

was held that following conditions must be fulfilled

before a case against an accused can be said to fully

established on circumstantial evidence:

(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion

of guilt is to be drawn should be fully

established;

(ii) the facts so established should be consistent

only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused, that is to say, they should not be

explainable on any other hypothesis except that

the accused is guilty;

(iii) the circumstance should be of a conclusive

nature and tendency;

(iv) they should exclude every possible

hypothesis except the one to be proved and;

(v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete

as not to leave any reasonable ground for the

conclusion consistent with the innocence of the

6

(1984) 4 SCC 116, paragraph 153

Page 13 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

accused and must show that in all human

probability the act must have been done by the

accused.

12. In the instant case, the prosecution relies on the

following circumstances: (i) the deceased died a

homicidal death; (ii) the deceased was taken from

home in the evening of 24.5.2004 by the accused -

appellants and thereafter, the deceased was not seen

alive; rather, his dead body was found in the early

morning hours of 25.05.2004; (iii) the chappals of the

deceased were found near the motorcycle owned by

one of the accused, where human blood was also

found; (iv) disclosure statement suffered by the

accused helped in reconstructing the crime scene as

also led to discovery of the motorcycle used in taking

the dead body of the deceased from the place where

he was murdered to the place where his body was

found; and (v) the accused held the motive to commit

murder as they were apprehensive that the deceased

might be leaking information to the police regarding

their illicit activities.

Page 14 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

13. We shall now deal with each of the above mentioned

circumstances.

Homicidal or Accidental Death

14. Ex PW7/A is the autopsy report which recites injuries

as follows:

(i) A lacerated wound of size 1 x 2 cm present on

left side of parietal region of forehead. 4 cm above

left ear. On dissection underlying bone was

found fractured into many pieces;

(ii) Diffused swelling of size 6 x 4 cm on occipital

region of head left side, 2 cm away from midline.

On dissection underlying bone was fractured and

haematoma was present.

(iii) A lacerated wound of size 2 x 4 cm present

on left foot. No bleeding was present. Bone and

muscle were visible.

(iv) Multiple abrasions were present on right foot

fingers.

(v) There was abrasion in the left side of abdomen

of size 6 x 3 cm.

Page 15 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

Cause of death was due to haemorrhage and

shock due to injury on vital organ. All injuries

except injury No. (iii) were antemortem caused

within the duration of 2 to 24 hours. Injury No.

(iii) was found post mortem. It may be noted that

internal examination, inter alia, revealed that (a)

stomach was empty; (b) small intestine disclosed

presence of chyle; and (b) large intestine had

presence of foul smelling gas. Importantly,

presence of faecal matter in the large intestine or

rectum is not reported in the autopsy report.

15. The antemortem injuries which resulted in the death

of the deceased are located on the head. In Modi’s “A

Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and

Toxicology”

7

, in Chapter 27 “Vehicular Traffic

Injuries”, under sub-heading “Injuries to Motor

Cyclists / Scooter Riders”, it is stated:

“A motorcyclist, who is subjected to sudden

deceleration, could be thrown off his vehicle and

could be flung to the ground, frequently head first.

His injuries are determined by the part of the body

that sustains the impact, the angle of impact and

the object struck. Wearing a crash helmet will

modify the impact of injury on the head. Hence, in

order to protect the head, the wearing of crash

7

24

th

Edition published by Lexis Nexis, at page 580

Page 16 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

helmet by those driving a motorcycle and the

pillion rider has now been made compulsory. The

head injuries involve the vault and base of skull

and facial bones.”

In light of what is stated in Modi’s Medical

Jurisprudence (supra) we can safely conclude that

the head injuries found on the body of the deceased

which appear to be the cause of his death could also

be a result of a motorcycle accident, though we cannot

say with certainty that it is not homicidal inasmuch

as it can also be caused by the impact of a hard heavy

object hitting the head with force. Therefore, what is

important is that the autopsy report does not rule out

antemortem injuries being a result of an accident.

Last Seen Circumstance

16. The circumstance of the deceased being last seen

together with the accused is a weak circumstance and

on its own is ordinarily not sufficient to record

conviction until and unless there is negligible time

gap between the two events i.e., the deceased being

seen together with the accused and discovery of the

dead body of the deceased, which rules out any third

party intervention in the crime. In cases where there

Page 17 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

is a large time gap between the two events, intervening

circumstances such as involvement of some third

party in the crime cannot be ruled out, and therefore,

this circumstance on its own would not be sufficient

to sustain a conviction. However, the said

circumstance becomes relevant when coupled with

other circumstances it constitutes a chain so

complete that it leads to an inference that in all

human probability it is the accused and no one else

who had committed the crime

8. As to when such an

inference can be drawn depends on the facts of each

case. At times, the relationship between the accused

and the deceased, place of residence of the accused

and the deceased, motive for the crime, conduct of the

deceased and accused etc. assume importance in

drawing such an inference from the proven

circumstances. When such an inference can be

gathered, the onus, by virtue of Section 106 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shifts on the accused to

prove those facts which are especially within his

8

See: Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760; and Nizam and Another v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC

550

Page 18 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

knowledge to explain the incriminating circumstances

appearing against him, and in absence thereof,

conviction may be recorded

9. However, Section 106 of

the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of

discharging its primary burden of proving its case

beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the

prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will

sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie

case, the question arises of considering facts of which

the burden of proof would lie upon the accused

10.

17. In the instant case, the evidence of the last scene

circumstance comes from PW1 and PW4. PW1 is

father of the deceased and PW4 is his brother. Both

PW1 and PW4 state that at, or about, 7.30 PM on

24.5.2004, while they along with the deceased had

had their meals, the accused-appellants came on a

red colour motorcycle and took away the deceased

with them. The deceased did not return in the night

and his body was found next day morning in a field of

9

State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254; and Satpal v. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610.

10

Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626; State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan, (2023) 13

SCC 695; and Md. Anowar Hussain v. State of Assam, (2022) 19 SCC 264

Page 19 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

one Sardar Baksha Singh. What is important here is

that in their previous statement they had not

disclosed about the red colour of the motorcycle.

Therefore, during their deposition in trial, they were

confronted with this omission in their previous

statement. The defence suggestion is that the entire

prosecution story was developed after the body of the

deceased was discovered. It is also their suggestion

that the prosecution story was contrived in

consultation with the police to convert a simple case

of road accident into one of murder. In that context,

we would carefully scrutinise the evidence.

18. To appropriately test the evidence of last seen in the

context of the submissions noticed above, the

estimated time of death, the time when the body of the

deceased was discovered and the time when the FIR

was lodged assumes importance.

19. As far as the time of death is concerned, the autopsy

report, which was prepared on 25.5.2004 on the basis

of examination conducted at 2.00 PM, states that

death could be anytime within 2 to 24 hours before.

Page 20 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

This gives rise to possibility of death occurring in the

wee hours of the morning of 25.05.2004. There is an

important circumstance which indicates occurrence

of death not before midnight of 24.05.2004 and

25.05.2005. According to both PW1 and PW4 the

deceased left the house at about 7.30 PM on

24.5.2004 after having meals. Autopsy report

indicates an empty stomach. Although there is no

absolute rule regarding the time-period within which

the stomach empties as it depends on multiple factors

including the nature of food consumed, however, in

ordinary course, the stomach empties within 4 to 6

hours after a reasonable meal. In Shivaji Sahabrao

Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

11

, this

Court, however, added a word of caution on

ascertainment of time of death by stomach contents.

Therein it was observed:

“11. … To quote Modi's Medical Jurisprudence

that food would be completely digested in 4 to 5

hours or to swear by the doctor to deduce that

death must have occurred within three hours of

the eating and, therefrom, to argue that the

presence of undigested food in the dead body

spells the sure inference that death must have

occurred before 2:00 PM is to mis -read the

11

(1973) 2 SCC 793, paragraph 11

Page 21 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

science on the subject of digestive processes.

Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, extracts from

which have been given by both the Courts, makes

out that a mixed diet of animal and vegetable

foods, normally taken by Europeans, takes four to

five hours for complete digestion while a vegetable

diet, containing mostly farinaceous food usually

consumed by Indians, does not leave the stomach

completely within 6 to 7 hours after its ingestion.

Indeed, the learned author cautiously adds that

the stomachic contents cannot determine with

precision the time of death “in as much as the

power of digestibility may remain in abeyance for

a long time in states of profound shock and

coma”. He also states “it must also be

remembered that the process of digestion in

normal healthy persons may continue for a time

after death”. … To impute exactitude to a medical

statement oblivious to the variables noticed by

experts and changes in dietary habits is to be

unfair to the science. We are not prepared to run

the judicial risk of staking the whole verdict on

nebulous medical observations. …”

20. However, there are two more circumstances here,

which may indicate that the death could have

occurred in the wee hours of the morning of

25.5.2004. First is the large intestine not showing

presence of faecal matter, and the second is the

doctor’s opinion that the time of death could be

between 2 to 24 hours before autopsy. Though we

cannot estimate the precise time of death based on

the absence of faecal matter in the large intestine as

people may have different habits, and it is also

possible that one may ease himself or herself in the

Page 22 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

night after meals. Nevertheless, this can be a factor

indicative of a possibility of the event occurring at the

time suggested. And, if other circumstances indicate

that there is a strong probability of that event

happening on or about that time, it may lend support

to that inference, and, in absence of cogent evidence

to the contrary, may serve the purpose of creating a

reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.

21. Now, we shall come to the testimony of PW1 and PW4

to find out whether they have been prompt in

reporting the matter, or had reported the matter with

delay, after they had contacted the police.

Importantly, this is a case where the FIR was lodged

after discovery of the body, and not as a missing

report. The FIR was lodged by PW1 at 9.45AM on

25.05.2004, inter alia, stating that at about 8.00 PM

of 24.05.2004, the accused-appellants took his son

i.e., the deceased on a motorcycle. The deceased did

not return in the night. A search for him was made in

the morning whereupon the deceased’s body was

found in a field near the bus stand. The FIR also

Page 23 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

expresses suspicion regarding the involvement of the

accused-appellants in the murder. Interestingly, the

FIR recites that when PW1 was on his way to lodge

the report, he met the police on the way and dictated

the narration to the police, which was later lodged as

a report. Two aspects are conspicuous in the FIR.

One is the statement describing the condition of the

body; and the other is the lack of information of the

motorcycle being found at another spot.

22. As far as description of the body is concerned, the FIR

describes the body as showing signs of being dragged.

Ordinarily, drag marks on the ground may indicate

that the body has been dragged. But none of the site

plans prepared during investigation and exhibited

during trial show presence of drag marks on the

ground. Further, no drag marks are noticed in the site

plan of the spot from where the body was lifted. The

absence of drag marks in the site plan, yet a mention

in the FIR regarding presence of signs that the body

was dragged, when, ordinarily, an expert only could

tell about it upon examining the body, gives an

Page 24 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

impression that its disclosure in the FIR is a result of

consultation with the police.

23. When we consider the testimony of PW4 , another

feature comes to light, which is, that the search for

the deceased had been ongoing since night and that

his body was found very early in the morning.

24. Insofar as discovery of the Yamaha motorcycle is

concerned, there is no evidence on record as to from

whom and when information was received about the

said motorcycle lying in the field. Although from the

testimony of the investigating officer and other

witnesses it is clear that the damaged motorcycle was

recovered from the field on the same day the FIR was

lodged, it is not clear as to who informed about the

presence of the damaged motorcycle in the field, and

at what time.

25. In that backdrop, the submission on behalf of the

appellants is that the damaged motorcycle and the

body of the deceased were first noticed in the field,

from there the body was transported to the place from

where it was recovered to contrive a story of murder.

Page 25 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

This was done because if the body had been lying near

the motorcycle the logical inference would have been

that the deceased died in an accident. Therefore, only

after completing that exercise, in consultation with

the police, the story of last scene was contrived.

26. We have given thoughtful consideration to the above

submissions. What strikes us is that, admittedly, at

the spot where the motorcycle was found there was

human blood. The nature of injuries was such that

the person would have died instantaneously on the

spot. Further, admittedly, the motorcycle was found

lying damaged in the field. The fatal injuries were only

on the head, and possible in a motorcycle accident, as

discussed above. In such circumstances, there was no

occasion for the accused to transport the body to

another place and leave chappals of the deceased

behind. If the accused wanted to create a scene of an

accident, they would not have removed the body from

there. And if they wanted to remove the body after

killing the deceased, they would not have damaged

the motorcycle and leave it in the field. Now, when we

Page 26 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

consider that the prosecution has failed to disclose as

to from whom they got the information of the

motorcycle, and at what time of the day the

motorcycle was found, a serious doubt arises about

the prosecution case. In that backdrop, when we

consider the medical evidence giving rise to the

possibility of death occurring in the wee hours of the

morning, the evidence of ‘last seen’ circumstance, in

our view, fails to inspire confidence. We thus hold that

the last seen circumstance is not proved beyond

reasonable doubt.

Ownership of Yamaha motorcycle

27. The prosecution sought to prove that Ranjeet Singh

was the owner of the Yamaha motorcycle found in the

field near which human blood and chappals of the

deceased were found. In fact, according to the

prosecution, two pairs of chappals were found at the

spot. One was identified by PW1 as that of the

deceased and the other could not be identified.

Interestingly, a forensic team went to the spot along

with finger print expert, but there is no forensic report

Page 27 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

in respect of presence of finger prints of any of the

accused on that motorcycle.

28. Ownership of the motorcycle was sought to be proved

by examining PW10 who produced a Bill (Ex. P12)

showing sale of Yamaha motorcycle with specified

Chassis/ Engine number to Ranj eet Singh, son of

Kapur Singh for Rs.33,220/ -. During cross-

examination, PW10 stated that he does not know

Ranjeet Singh personally; he did not sell the

motorcycle to Ranjeet Singh; and that what he had

stated was from the entry in the Bill book. He also

could not prove the signature of Ranjeet Singh on the

Bill Book to show acceptance of delivery of the vehicle

by him. Admittedly, the vehicle is not registered in the

name of any of the accused persons. No witness has

come forward to state that that motorcycle had been

in the possession or ownership of any of the accused.

Only PW1 and PW4 stated in their deposition in Court

that the accused had come on a red colour motorcycle

to take the deceased with them. But the colour and

make of the motorcycle was absent in their previous

Page 28 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

statement and they were confronted with that

omission during their deposition in Court. In such

circumstances, bearing in mind that accused Ranjeet

Singh had denied ownership of the motorcycle in his

statement under Section 313 of CrPC, we are of the

view that ownership of the Yamaha motorcycle could

not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Disclosure Statement

29. The prosecution sets up a case that basis disclosure

statement(s) of the accused the crime scene was

reconstructed and a Honda motorcycle was recovered

which was used to carry/ drag the dead body from

the place of murder to the place where it was found.

30. In so far as discovery of the crime scene is concerned,

the same was already a discovered fact, and therefore,

the disclosure has no evidentiary value. Admittedly,

they could neither recover the murder weapon nor

blood-stained clothes etc. to link the accused to the

crime. Further, the Honda motorcycle did not show

any signs of carrying or dragging a dead body. No

blood stains were found on it. In such circumstances,

Page 29 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

the alleged disclosure statement (s) have no

evidentiary value.

Motive

31. The prosecution relies on testimony of PW1 and PW4 to

prove motive for the crime. According to those

witnesses, the accused felt that the deceased had been

leaking information to the police about their illicit

narcotic trade etc. No doubt, the prosecution has

produced certain documents to show that the accused

were tried and convicted, but there is nothing on record

to show that the deceased had been an informant or

witness in any case against them. Neither PW1 nor PW4

disclose about any previous incident where the accused

may have threatened the deceased about passing

information to the police against them. No previous

incident of altercation or fight involving accused and

the deceased has been brought to our notice from the

evidence. Besides, if the deceased and accused were

inimical towards each other, the deceased would not

have gone with them in the night. And if PW1 and PW4

were aware of the enmity, they would have reported

Page 30 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

immediately when the deceased did not return in the

night. In such circumstances, we are of the view that

the prosecution has also failed in proving the motive for

the crime.

Conclusion

32. In light of the discussion above, we find, firstly, the

prosecution has failed to prove the incriminating

circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, and,

secondly, those circumstances cumulatively do not

indicate that in all human probability it is the accused

who had committed the crime and no one else. Besides,

the circumstances proven on record do strongly

indicate that the deceased died in a motorcycle

accident.

33. In our view, the High Court had failed to consider and

evaluate the evidence in the context of the submissions

made before it and committed a serious mistake of not

testing the prosecution case against the weight of

attending facts and circumstances proven on record.

34. We have therefore no hesitation in allowing the appeals.

The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order of the

Page 31 of 31

Criminal Appeal No. 1148 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2017

High Court as well as the Trial Court are set aside. The

appellants are acquitted of all the charge(s) for which

they were tried. They are reported to be on bail. They

need not surrender. Their bail bonds are discharged.

35. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.....................................J.

(MANOJ MISRA)

.....................................J.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)

New Delhi;

July 14

th

, 2026