Case Title:
Rajendra Singh & Others vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 476–477 of 2013
Judgment Date: 7 October 2025
Judges: Justice Pankaj Mithal & Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Background
- Rajendra Singh (father), Bhupender Singh (son), and Ranjeet Singh (son-in-law) were accused of murdering Pushpendra Singh, son of Diler Singh.
- The Trial Court had acquitted all three.
- The High Court of Uttarakhand later reversed that acquittal and convicted them under Section 302 IPC (murder) with life imprisonment.
- The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Prosecution Story
- On 3 June 2000, Rajendra Singh and his son were digging land belonging to Diler Singh.
- An argument broke out.
- Later that day, Pushpendra Singh (the victim) was sitting near a local junction.
- The accused came on a motorcycle armed with swords and a kanta (sharp weapon).
- They chased Pushpendra, who ran into Mukhtyar Singh’s house for safety.
- The accused followed him inside and attacked him fatally.
- An FIR was filed by Pushpendra’s father (Diler Singh).
Main Witnesses
PW-7 Amarjeet Kaur – Lady of the house where murder occurred.
She saw three unknown men attack the boy with swords.
She got bloodstains on her clothes while trying to stop them.
Importantly — she did not know who the attackers were and no identification parade was done.
PW-1 Diler Singh (Father) – Claimed to have seen the accused chase and attack his son.
But his version had contradictions.
He arrived after the incident, according to Amarjeet Kaur’s statement.
His blood-stained clothes were never seized by police.
PW-2 Jwala Singh – Another “chance witness” who joined later; his testimony also didn’t match the timings.
Key Legal Issue
Was the identity of the accused as the real killers established?
No proper eyewitness identified them.
No identification parade held.
Weapons recovered, but forensic reports didn’t prove they were used in the murder.
The accused’s statements to police like “we used these weapons to kill him” were inadmissible under the Evidence Act.
Important Law: Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
Section 25 & 26: Confessions made to or in custody of police can’t be used against the accused.
Section 27: Only that part of a disclosure which leads to discovery of a fact (like recovery of weapon) is admissible.
Example: Saying “I will show where I hid the sword” is admissible.
But “I killed him with this sword” is not admissible.
Supreme Court cited:
Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor (1947)
Manjunath v. State of Karnataka (2023)
Supreme Court’s Analysis
PW-7 was credible but couldn’t identify the accused.
PW-1 and PW-2’s presence at the scene was doubtful.
Recovery of weapons didn’t connect the accused with the murder.
The High Court shouldn’t have interfered with the Trial Court’s acquittal unless findings were clearly wrong.
Final Judgment
- The Supreme Court set aside the conviction.
- Restored the acquittal by the Trial Court.
- Accused were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
- Their bail bonds were discharged.
Judgment Takeaway
🔹 Only the part of an accused’s disclosure that leads to recovery is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Statements about using the weapon in the crime are not admissible.
🔹 High Courts should not overturn acquittals unless the lower court’s findings are clearly perverse or unreasonable.
