1  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

Criminal Appeal No. 567 of 2017  

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                         Appellant(s)  

VERSUS  

NAVEEN KUMAR                                        Respondent(s)  

J U D G M E N T   

N. V. RAMANA, J.  

1. Heard counsels for both the parties.  

2. The present appeal is preferred by the State against the  

impugned order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the High Court of  

Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, wherein the High Court while  

accepting the appeal preferred by the accused-Respondent, set  

NON-REPORTABLE

2  

aside the earlier order of conviction passed by the trial court and  

acquitted the accused-Respondent from all charges.  

3. The brief case of the prosecution necessary for the adjudication  

of the matter is as follows. On 10.09.1999, around eight persons  

including the accused-Respondent were alleged to have formed  

an unlawful assembly with a common object of causing deadly  

assault upon PW-1 Ashwani Kumar, PW-2 Ram Pal and three  

other deceased persons. The accused persons allegedly armed  

with deadly weapons such as, swords, gandasis, hockey sticks,  

clutch wire, etc. blocked the roads and around 9:30p.m, the  

victims reached the place of occurrence, the accused persons  

attacked them and the intended criminal act was accomplished  

within 3-4 minutes. The alleged persons fled the scene of crime  

before the injured and the deceased could raise an alarm.  

Thereafter, the police were informed by 9:35 p.m., through the  

telephone and an entry was made in the Rojnamacha, at the  

Police Station, regarding the aforesaid incident.   

4. Thereafter, the injured persons were taken to the hospital. But,  

while the deceased persons, Rajiv Kumar, Raj Kumar and  

Santokh Singh were undergoing treatment, they succumbed to  

their injuries. In the meanwhile, P.W 29-ASI recorded the

3  

statement of PW-1 Ashwani Kumar. During the course of  

investigation, the accused persons, including the present  

accused-Respondent were arrested. Allegedly, the accused-

Respondent made a disclosure statement, which led to the  

recovery of the clutch wire. After the completion of the  

investigation, seven more accused persons were challaned along  

with the present Respondent for screening the accused persons  

and helping them in the obstruction of evidence.   

5. The trial court after relying upon the statements of two injured  

eye-witnesses, PW-1 Ashwani Kumar and PW-2 Ram Kumar,  

concluded that, the accused-Respondent along with seven  

others are guilty under Sections 302, 324, 323, 341, 148 read  

with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred  

as “IPC”). Accordingly, the sessions court awarded the following  

sentence; Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- in  

default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for  

a further period of two years, for offence under Section 302, read  

with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous  

imprisonment for three years and  fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default  

of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a  

further period of six months, for offence under Section 324, read

4  

with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous  

imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of  

payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further  

period of two months, for offence under Section 323, read with  

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code; simple imprisonment for  

one month and  a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine  

to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of seven  

days, for offence under Section 341 read with Section 149 of the  

Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for three years  

and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months, for  

offence under Section 148, read with Section 149 of the Indian  

Penal Code.  

6. Aggrieved by the above order of conviction, the accused persons  

preferred an appeal before High Court. The High Court, upon  

finding lack of evidence against the accused-Respondent and  

four other accused persons, allowed their appeal and acquitted  

them, while upholding the conviction of the other two accused  

persons. It may be noted that, since accused no.5, Ashok Kumar  

passed away during the trial, the proceedings against him  

stands abated.  

5  

7. The State has preferred the present appeal against aforesaid  

order of acquittal.  

8. The counsel on behalf of the appellant-State, while supporting  

the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Court, submitted  

that, this ocular version of the natural witness is supported  

other medical and forensic evidences, hence, the high court  

erred while passing the impugned order of acquittal.  

9. Whereas, the counsel on behalf of the Accused-Respondent  

supported the order of acquittal passed by the High Court as the  

prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence, so as to  

implicate the accused-Respondent for the commission of the  

alleged offence.  

10. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and after  

perusing the record, we find that, the Respondent was not  

named as one of the accused in the FIR registered at the instance  

of P.W 1-Ashwani Kumar. It was only in the subsequent  

statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, that PW1-Ashwani  

Kumar improved upon his earlier statement and named two  

more persons including the accused-Respondent herein. But,  

PW 1-Ashwani Kumar, failed to provide any plausible reason as

6  

to why these two persons, including the present Respondent  

were not named in the earlier statement, wherein he had ample  

opportunity to name the accused persons without any  

deliberation. Therefore, the High Court correctly observed that,  

in the such circumstances, the accused-Respondent cannot be  

convicted in the absence of corroboration of independent  

evidences to prove his involvement in the alleged crime.  

11. In the present case, the counsel for the State has argued that,  

pursuant to the disclosure made by the accused-Respondent, a  

clutch wire was recovered. But it is pertinent to note here that,  

firstly, the alleged confessional statement was given while the  

accused-Respondent was in the police custody. Secondly, the  

fact of recovery of the clutch wire is not enough to prove the  

culpability of the accused-Respondent as, a clutch wire is a  

commonly available material in the market and there was no  

specific mark on the recovered clutch wire to associate it with  

the offence. Further, postmortem report reveals that the injuries  

can be attributed to Gandasis or Khukhri. Therefore, apart from  

the subsequent statement made of PW 1-Ashwini Kumar, there  

is no other evidence to prove the culpability of the accused-

Respondent.

7  

12. Having observed the above facts and circumstances, we are of  

the considered opinion that, the High Court has rightfully  

acquitted the accused-Respondent, as the case of the present  

respondent cannot be equated with that of the convicted accused  

persons. In our opinion, there exists no perversity in the  

judgment of the High Court. Further, in the absence of  

compelling reasons, this court is not keen to entertain this  

appeal challenging the order of acquittal.  

13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if  

any, shall also stand disposed of.   

……………………………..J.  (N. V. Ramana)  

 ……………………………..J.  

(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)   

NEW DELHI,  

OCTOBER 04, 2018