Uttarakhand High Court
Prakash Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2025
Prakash Singh ...... Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2025
Chandi Singh and Others ...... Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi,
Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2025
Jaswant Singh alias Jassa and Another ...... Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi,
Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
Criminal Appeal No. 387 of 2025
Jaswant Singh alias Nandi and Others ...... Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand ..... Respondent
Present:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi,
Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT
Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
2
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since all these criminal appeals arise from one
and the same sessions trial, they are heard together and being
decided by this common judgment.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred against
the judgment and order dated 26.05.2025/27.05.2025, passed in
Sessions Trial No. 223 of 2014, State v. Kashmir Singh and
others, by the court of Third Additional Sessions Judge,
Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appellants have
been convicted under Sections 302 read with 34, Section 120B
read with Section 302 IPC and Section 201 read with 34 IPC and
sentenced as follows:-
(i) Under Section 302 read with 34 IPC –
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.
10,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to undergo further imprisonment for a
period of two years.
(ii) Under Section 120B read with 302 IPC –
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.
10,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to undergo further imprisonment for a
period of two years.
(iii) Under Section 201 read with 34 IPC –
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in
default of payment of fine to undergo
3
further imprisonment for a period of one
month.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows. PW
1 Bachan Singh lodged a first information report on 24.08.2014.
According to it, his son Harnam Singh @ Honey would make
complaint against the manufacturers of illicit liquor, due to which
Kashmir Singh & Sheeri, Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri, Jaswant Singh
@ Nandi, Jassa SIngh, Mangal Singh @ Bhagat Singh, Binder
Singh, Babbu Singh, Dara Singh, Prakash Singh @ Paasi Singh
and Pappi Singh were inimical to him. They had extended threat
to Harnam Singh @ Honey on multiple occasions in the past. On
21.08.2014, at about 02:00 p.m., these named persons visited the
house of the informant, inquired about his son Harnam Singh and
threatened him to kill Harnam Singh, which was witnessed by
Bachan Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Ravindra Singh, etc. The FIR
further records that backdrop of this was that on 20.08.2014,
police had raided and destroyed the illicit liquor manufacturing
unit of the appellants. On 22.08.2014, Abdul Rehman called the
deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey at his residence and on the
same night, his son Harnam Singh @ Honey and Kulwant Singh @
Gole were killed by the appellants and their dead bodies were
thrown in the forest.
4
5. Based on this FIR, Chik FIR was recorded at the
Police Station Kunda, District Udham Singh Nagar and Case
Crime No. 58 of 2014 under Sections 302, 120B, 34 IPC was
lodged against the appellants and against Kashmir Singh and
Abdul Rahman.
6. In fact, the dead bodies of the deceased were located
prior to lodging of the FIR and the inquest report of the deceased
Harnam Singh was prepared on 24.08.2014 at 07:10 a.m. From
near his dead body, a motorcycle bearing Registration No. DL 85
AM-2381 was also taken into custody by the police. The
postmortem of the deceased Harnam Singh was conducted on
24.08.2014 at 03:45 p.m. According to the doctor, who conducted
the postmortem of the deceased Harnam Singh, the cause of
death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation.
7. The inquest of the deceased Kulwant Singh was also
prepared on the same day i.e. 24.08.2014. His postmortem was
conducted on 24.08.2014 at 02:45 p.m. As per the postmortem
report, the cause of death of the deceased Kulwant Singh was also
asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation.
8. According to the prosecution case, on 06.09.2014, the
appellants Jaswant Singh @ Nandi and Bhagat Singh were
apprehended while they were riding on a motorcycle bearing
Registration No. UK06T 1978. The motorcycle was taken into
custody, which according to the prosecution case, was used by
the appellants in the commission of the crime. It is further the
5
prosecution case that on 31.08.2014, at the instance of the
appellants Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri and Jaswant Singh @ Jassa,
two ropes and a pair of shoes worn by the deceased Kulwant
Singh @ Gole were recovered, and the appellants Lakhvinder
Singh @ Viri and Jaswant Singh @ Jassa confessed that with the
help of those ropes, they had killed the deceased.
9. The police also took into custody the blood stained
soil and the simple soil and sent them for forensic examination.
The FSL report was received, according to which there were blood
on those articles. However, as such, no report was received that
the appellants or any one of them were also present at the scene
of occurrence. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site
plans of multiple places relating to the offence, which are on
record. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted
against all the appellants and one Kashmir Singh under Sections
10. The cognizance was taken and on 12.01.2015,
charges were framed against the appellants and Kashmir Singh
for the offences punishable under Sections 120B read with 302
IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 34 IPC, to which the
appellants denied and claimed trial.
11. During trial, Kashmir Singh died and the case stood
abated against him vide order dated 20.05.2023. Trial proceeded
against the appellants.
6
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined
as many as 18 witnesses, namely, PW 1 Bachan Singh, PW 2
Ravindra Singh, PW 3 Ranjeet Singh, PW 4 SI Bhuwan Chandra
Joshi, PW 5 Kaltar Singh, PW 6 Balwant Singh, PW 7 Gurmeet
Singh, PW 8 Gurumukh Singh, PW 9 Arjun Singh, PW 10 Dr.
Rakesh Kumar Sundariyal, PW 11 Jogendra Singh, PW 12
Harbhajan Singh @ Bhajan Singh, PW 13 Retd. SI Umesh Ram
Arya, PW 14 SI Narendra Singh Rawat, PW 15 SI Kuldeep Singh,
PW 16 Constable Gajendra Singh, PW 17 Constable Dharmendra
Bharti and PW 18 Arvind Dangwal.
13. After the prosecution evidence was over, the
appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). According to them, they
have falsely been implicated and the witnesses have given false
evidence against them.
14. After recording of the statement of the appellants
under Section 313 of the Code, at the stage of argument, two
witnesses, namely, CW1 Smt. Husna Bibi and CW2 Abdul Rahim
were examined by the Court. They were cross-examined by the
prosecution, but not cross-examined by the appellants.
15. CW1 Smt. Husna Bibi was examined in question and
answer form. She has not stated anything about the prosecution
case.
7
16. CW2 Abdul Rahim is perhaps the person, who,
according to the prosecution, had called the deceased at his
residence on 22.08.2014. According to him, he did not call the
deceased at his residence. He has also not supported the
prosecution case.
17. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment
and order the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302
read with 34, Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC and Section
201 read with 34 IPC and sentenced as stated hereinbefore.
18. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, except the
appellant Prakash Singh S/o Dhanna Singh submits that it is a
case of circumstantial evidence and the chain is not complete;
even there is no last seen evidence; there is no direct evidence;
merely on the basis of some threat allegedly extended by the
appellants, they have been convicted, which, it is argued, at the
most may be termed as suspicion. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that it cannot take a shape of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. He also submits that at the instance of the appellants
Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri and Jaswant Singh @ Jassa, two ropes
and a pair of shoes worn by the deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole
were allegedly recovered, but, neither the prosecution has proved
the contemporarily recorded disclosure statement nor the articles
allegedly recovered are connected with the appellants. He also
submits that even otherwise, these articles were found from some
open place accessible to all, therefore, the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond doubt; the appellants ought to have been
8
acquitted of the charges leveled against them, therefore, while
allowing the appeals, the impugned judgment and order is liable
to be set aside.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant Prakash Singh S/o
Dhanna Singh submits that this appellant is not named in the
FIR; nothing has been recovered from him; he has been implicated
based on the confessional statement made by the co-accused,
which is not corroborated to any extent; hence the appellant
Prakash Singh S/o Dhanna Singh ought to have been acquitted of
the charges levelled against him. Therefore, it is argued that while
allowing the appeal of the appellant Prakash Singh S/o Dhanna
Singh, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside.
20. Learned State Counsel submits that the conviction is
based on the evidence of PW 1 Bachan Singh, PW 2 Ravindra
Singh, PW 3 Ranjeet Singh, PW 6 Balwant Singh and PW 7
Gurmeet Singh. He submits that PW 6 Balwant Singh is the
person, who had lastly seen the deceased in the company of the
appellants; there is a recovery at the instance of the appellants
Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri and Jaswant Singh @ Jassa.
21. Learned State Counsel very fairly submits that the
case is mainly based on rivalry between two groups, wherein the
appellants had given threat to the deceased Harnam Singh; the
appellants were in the manufacturing of illicit liquor, of which a
complaint was made by the deceased Harnam Singh.
9
22. One of the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence
is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. A person may have killed someone is not a case proved
beyond reasonable doubt. It should be with certainty that the
person must have killed or has killed or, in fact, killed another
person.
23. In the case of circumstantial evidence, in fact, each
circumstance should be so interconnected so as to exclude every
possibility of innocence of the person so charged.
24. In fact, what is proof beyond reasonable doubt and
what are those aspects, have been discussed in the case State of
Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha and others, (2017) 6 SCC 263. In para
222 to 224, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the law on this
point and observed as follows:-
“Burden of proof and benefits of doubt
222. That the burden of proof of a charge is on the
prosecution subject to the defence of insanity and any other
statutory exception has been authoritatively proclaimed
in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions
[Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1935 AC 462
(HL)] and testified by the following extract : (AC pp. 481-82)
“… Throughout the web of the English Criminal
Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt
subject to what I have already said as to the defence of
insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at
the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a
reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either
the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the
prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention,
the prosecution has not made out the case and the
prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the
10charge or where the trial, the principle that the
prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of
the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it
down can be entertained.”
223. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra,
(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033] , Hon’ble Krishna Iyer,
J., in his inimitable expressional felicity cautioned against the
dangers of exaggerated affinity to the rule of benefit of doubt as
hereunder : (SCC p. 799, para 6)
“6. … The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the
rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence
and to the soothing sentiment that all acquittals are
always good regardless of justice to the victim and the
community, demand especial emphasis in the
contemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The
judicial instrument has a public accountability. The
cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond
reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law
should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every
hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive
solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty
men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a
false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the
accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will
then break down and lose credibility with the community.
The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly as a
learned author (Glanville Williams in “Proof of Guilt”) has
sapiently observed, goes much beyond the simple fact
that just one guilty person has gone unpunished. If
unmerited acquittals become general, they tend to lead to
a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turn leads to a
public demand for harsher legal presumptions against
indicated “persons” and more severe punishment of those
who are found guilty.”
224. In Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormall [Collector of
Customs v. D. Bhoormall, (1974) 2 SCC 544 : 1974 SCC (Cri)
784] , this Court had observed (SCC p. 553, para 30) that in all
human affairs, absolute certainty is a myth and the law does not
require the prosecution to prove the impossible. It was
highlighted that all that was required is the establishment of
such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on this
basis believe in the existence of the fact in issue. It was
11
exposited that legal proof is thus not necessarily perfect proof
and is nothing more than a prudent man’s estimate as to the
probability of the case.”
25. Before the arguments are appreciated, it would be apt
to examine as to what the witnesses have stated?
26. PW1 Bachan Singh is the informant. According to
him, his son the deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey would
complain against the manufacturer of illicit liquor, due to which
Kashmir Singh @ Sheeri, Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri, Jaswant Singh
@ Nandi, Binder Singh, Jassa Singh, Dara Singh, Mangal Singh @
Bhagat, Babbu Singh, Dara Singh, Prakash Singh @ Paasi, Pappi
Singh and Abdul Rehman were inimical towards him. On
20.08.2014, at the information of deceased Harnam Singh @
Honey, police had destroyed the illegal liquor manufacturing unit
of the appellants, due to which on 21.08.2014, all of them visited
the house of this witness and enquired about the deceased
Harnam Singh @ Honey, and extended threat of life to the
deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey. According to this witness, on
21.08.2014, Abdul Rehman had telephonically called the deceased
Harnam Singh @ Honey at his residence. The deceased Harnam
Singh @ Honey along with his friend the deceased Kulwant Singh
@ Gole visited the house of Abdul Rehman, but thereafter, they
did not return. Their dead bodies were found in the forest on
24.08.2014. Thereafter, this witness lodged the FIR. He has
proved the FIR, Ex. A1.
12
27. PW2 Ravindra Singh along with PW7 Gurmeet Singh,
visited the house of the appellant Jaswant Singh @ Jassa on
20.08.2014 and purchased liquor. There, according to this
witness, the appellant Jaswant Singh @ Jassa had said that the
deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole and one another had destroyed
their articles, which were kept for making liquor. He also abused
the deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole and threatened him to life.
This witness also stated that on 21.08.2014, the appellant
Jaswant Singh @ Jassa along with other appellants extended
threats. According to him, on 22.08.2014, the deceased Kulwant
Singh @ Gole along with the deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey,
had gone to Kashipur, but they did not return. They had visited
Abdul Rehman at his residence on that day, and, subsequently,
their dead bodies were recovered. PW7 Gurmeet Singh has
corroborated the statement of PW2 Ravindra Singh.
28. PW3 Ranjeet Singh has stated that on 22.08.2014, at
about 07:00, in the evening, he had spotted the appellants
Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri, Mangal Singh @ Bhagat and Prakash
Singh @ Paasi holding some articles in their hands and moving
towards forest. This witness also tells that these appellants were
into the manufacturing of illicit liquor. He has also stated that on
the same date, he had further seen that Jassa, Lakhvinder Singh
@ Viri, Nandi, Paasi and Mangal Singh @ Bhagat, Prakash, Lala
Singh, Chandi Singh were enquiring about the deceased Kulwant
Singh @ Gole, and also said that they would not spare the
deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole, on that date. According to this
witness, the dead bodies of the deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey
13
and Kulwant Singh @ Gole were recovered from a place near the
illicit liquor manufacturing unit of the appellants.
29. PW4 Bhuwan Chandra Joshi was posted at Police
Station Rudrapur on the date of incident. According to him, he
had prepared inquest report. He proved the inquest report of the
deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey, Ex. A2. According to him, upon
information having been received, he had also arrested the
appellants Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri and Jaswant Singh @ Jassa,
who, on interrogation on 31.08.2014, revealed that they could get
recovered the ropes used in the killing of the deceased as well as
the shoes of the deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole, which were
subsequently recovered. This witness has stated that a recovery
memo was recorded at the spot, which this witness has also
signed. He has also stated that on 20.09.2014, upon information
having been received, the appellant Dara Singh, Prakash Singh
and others were also arrested.
30. PW5 Kaltar Singh is the witness of inquest of the
deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole. He was subsequently declared
hostile by the prosecution.
31. PW6 Balwant Singh has corroborated the statement of
PW3 Ranjeet Singh.
32. PW8 Gurumukh Singh is also the witness of inquest
of the deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey, Ex. A2.
14
33. PW9 Arjun Singh is another witness of inquest of the
deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey.
34. PW10 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sundariyal has conducted
the post-mortem of the deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole at 2:45
p.m. on 24.08.2014. According to him, the following injuries were
found on the person of the deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole:-
“1. Face swollen and congested with tongue protruded
and caught between teeth.
2. Conjunctiva congested and both eyeballs
protruding
3. Ligature mark present in neck below thyroid
cartilage encircling complete neck 26 cm x 1 cm
with echymosis.”
According to this witness, the cause of death was
asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation. He has proved
the post-mortem report, Ex. A7.
35. PW10 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sundariyal has also
conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Harnam Singh @
Honey at about 3:45 p.m. on the same date, and found the
following injuries on his person:-
“1. Face swollen with tongue protruded and caught
between teeth.
2. Conjunctiva congested and both eyes protruding.
3. Ligature mark present in neck below thyroid
cartilage. Ligature mark is a groove 26 cm x 1 cm
encircling whole neck with surrounding echymosis.
4. No other injury found.”
15
He has proved the post-mortem report of the deceased
Harnam Singh, Ex. A8. According to him, the deceased Harnam
Singh @ Honey also died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-
mortem strangulation.
36. PW11 Jogender Singh and PW12 Harbajan Singh @
Bhajan Singh, both have not supported the prosecution case
during trial. They have been declared hostile.
37. PW13 SI Umesh Ram Arya was Incharge Police
Station Kunda on the date of incident. According to him, on that
date, information was received at the police station that two dead
bodies have been spotted at a place. Thereafter, he directed for
preparation of inquest. This witness also reached at the place of
incident where the dead bodies were located. According to him, a
motorcycle, bearing Registration No. DL 85 AM-2381 was also
spotted near the place where the dead bodies were found. This
motorcycle was taken into custody. He has proved the recovery
memo of it, Ex. A9. This witness has also proved the documents
by which the plain and the blood stained soil were taken into
custody. He prepared site plans, etc. According to him, the
appellants Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri and Jaswant Singh @ Jassa
were arrested and on their instance, some articles were also
recovered. He has also stated about the arrest of appellant
Prakash Singh and the recovery of the motorcycle from him,
which, according to him, was used in the commission of crime.
This witness has proved the recovery memo pertaining to it. He
has also stated about the arrest of the appellants Jaswant Singh
16
@ Nandi and Mangal Singh @ Bhagat and recovery of the
motorcycle. He has also proved the recovery memo pertaining to
it. According to PW13 Umesh Ram Arya, on 20.09.2014, upon
information having been received, Dara Singh, Prakash Singh @
Paasi, Chandi Singh and Balwinder Singh @ Binder were also
arrested. He proved those documents. He has also stated about
the arrest of Kashmir Singh @ Sheeri and Lal Singh @ Balwinder
Singh. He proved their arrest memo, etc. as well as certain articles
recovered from them.
38. PW14 SI Narendra Singh Rawat has recorded the chik
FIR and made its entry in the General Diary. He has proved the
documents as Ex. P15 and Ex. P16.
39. PW15 SI Kuldeep Singh has prepared inquest of the
deceased Kulwant Singh @ Gole, which is Ex. P17. He has also
stated about the arrest of some of the appellants. He has proved
other police documents.
40. PW16 Constable Gajendra Singh is also the witness of
certain arrest and recovery. He has stated about it.
41. PW17 Constable Dharmendra Bharti has also stated
about the arrest of Kashmir Singh @ Sheeri and Lal Singh @
Balwinder.
42. PW18 Arvind Dangwal is the Investigating Officer,
who has submitted the chargesheet. According to him, during
17
investigation, he made certain arrests; interrogated the arrested
persons. He has proved some disclosure statements as well, and
finally, proved the charge sheet, Ex. P34. This is the entire
evidence.
43. Mainly, the prosecution relies on the following
evidence:-
(i) The appellants were into the
manufacturing of illicit liquor.
(ii) The deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey, the
son of PW1 Bachan Singh was against the
manufacturing of illicit liquor and he
would make complaint against it.
(iii) On a complaint of the deceased Harnam
Singh @ Honey, on 20.08.2014, the illicit
liquor manufacturing unit of the
appellants was destroyed by the police.
(iv) On 21.08.2014, at 02:00, in the afternoon,
the appellants extended threat to the life of
the deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey.
(v) On 22.08.2014, one Abdul Rehman had
telephonically called the deceased Harnam
Singh @ Honey, and his friend Kulwant
Singh @ Gole at his residence. Thereafter,
the deceased did not return to their
respective homes.
(vi) On 22.08.2014, some of the appellants
were located near a dam, when some of the
18
witnesses had gone to get fish, and at that
time also, threats were extended to the
deceased.
(vii) At the instance of the appellant
Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri, two ropes,
allegedly used in the commission of crime,
were recovered on 31.08.2014, and on the
same day, at the instance of the appellant
Jaswant Singh @ Jassa, a pair of shoes,
allegedly worn by the deceased Kulwant
Singh @ Gole was recovered near the place
of occurrence.
(viii) The FSL report records that the blood
stained soil and other articles had human
blood.
44. Admittedly, the ropes allegedly recovered at the
instance of the appellant Lakhvinder Singh @ Viri were never
forwarded for forensic examination. Did they have any blood or
any DNA match with the deceased? The prosecution case is silent
on it. Has there been any blood or any biological evidence, which
could connect the appellants with the offence? There is no such
forensic evidence.
45. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, (1984)4 SCC 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
laid down five golden principles, which are applicable in the case
19
of circumstantial evidence. In para 153 of the judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be”
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be
proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC
(Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations were
made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a
court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may
be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions.”
(2) 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,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) 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 accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.”
46. Learned State Counsel has argued that PW 6 Balwant
Singh has given last seen evidence, but it is not so. PW 6 Balwant
Singh has merely stated that he had seen some of the appellants
on 22.08.2014, who were extending threats to the deceased
Kulwant Singh @ Gole.
20
47. The threat allegedly extended by the appellants to the
deceased Harnam Singh @ Honey and Kulwant Singh @ Gole, in
no manner connects the appellants with the crime. Threats
extended, howsoever grave may be, unless accompanied by some
overt act and proof in the court of law may not bring home guilt to
an accused.
48. The prosecution has relied upon another piece of
evidence, which is the alleged recovery of the ropes under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Act”). On this aspect, it
is argued that there is no disclosure statement as such. The
prosecution has tried to prove the recovery under Section 27 of
the Act. The law is settled that confession made before the police
is not admissible and it cannot be proved, but, if any recovery is
made based on such statement, to that extent the recovery may be
proved.
49. In the case of Bodhraj alias Bodha and others v. State
of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has discussed the law relating to recovery at the instance of
the accused. In para 18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:-
“18. ………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for
the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the
section could not in consequence of the preceding sections,
be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section
27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to
discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come
from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement
21of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous
results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable
evidence in cases where a person, who is subsequently
taken into custody and becomes an accused, after
committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes
to him or to the police station and states the circumstances
of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body,
weapon or any other material fact, in consequence of the
information thus received from him. This information which
is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under
Section 27 if the information did not come from a person in
the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not
in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is
admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the
information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible
being the information, the same has to be proved and not
the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other
words, the exact information given by the accused while in
custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be
proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the
accused and the prosecution that information given should
be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact
information must be adduced through evidence. The basic
idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the
doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine
is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as
a search made on the strength of any information obtained
from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true.
……………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………..”
50. In view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the prosecution has to record the information given by the
accused and prove it. As held in the case of Bodhraj (supra), the
exact information must be adduced through evidence. At the cost
of repetition, it may be noted that in the case of Bodhraj (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “The basic idea
embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of
confirmation by subsequent events”.
22
51. PW 18 Arvind Dangwal is the Investigating Officer. He
has been asked about the disclosure statement. According to him,
it was recorded in the case diary and in para 35 of his statement,
he states that the disclosure statement was not separately
recorded by him.
52. The fact remains that the recovery was made from an
open place accessible to all and it has not been established that
the ropes allegedly recovered were, in fact, used. These ropes were
never sent for forensic examination.
53. Therefore, this Court is of the view that whatever
evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, it is much weak
kind of evidence. The circumstances are not connected to each
other to indicate that it is the appellants and the appellants alone,
who have committed the offence.
54. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the
view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants ought to have been
acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Learned court below
has committed an error in convicting and sentencing the
appellants. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
55. The appeals are allowed.
23
56. The judgment and order dated
26.05.2025/27.05.2025, passed in Sessions Trial No. 223 of
2014, State v. Kashmir Singh and others, by the court of Third
Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh
Nagar is set aside.
57. The appellants Prakash Singh, Chandi Singh, Lal
Singh @ Balwinder Singh, Balwinder Singh @ Binder, Jaswant
Singh @ Jassa, Lakhveer Singh @ Viri, Jaswant Singh @ Nandi,
Bhagat Singh @ Bhagat, Prakash Singh @ Paasi and Dara Singh
are acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 read with 34,
Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC and Section 201 read
with 34 IPC.
58. The appellants are in jail. Let they be released
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case, subject to their
furnishing personal bond and to sureties each of the like amount
to the satisfaction of the court concerned under Section 437A of
the Code.
59. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court
record be sent to the court concerned.
60. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court
record be sent to the court concerned.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)
25.02.2026
Avneet/
