http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNAJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SARUP SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/11/1997

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:                Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati                Hon’bel Mr. Justice V.N. Khare R.S. Sodhi, Kuldip Singh, Advs. for the appellant Sudhir  Walia,   Adv.  for   Prem  Malhotra,  Adv.  for  the Respondent                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: Nanvati, J.      The State is challenging acquittal of the respondent in this appeal.      The respondent  was tried  for the  murder of Kulwinder Singh and  the trial  court relying  upon  the  evidence  of Kulwinder Kaur- PW 5 and Gian Singh - PW 4 which proved that the accused  and the  deceased were last seen together and t he evidence of recovery of currency notes and wrist watch of the deceased,  on the  basis of  a declaration  made by  the accused, held  him quality.  The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.      The High  Court held that Gian Singh was chance witness and therefore it was risky to rely upon his evidence without any corroboration.  The High Court also held that identiy of currency notes  and the  wrist watch  was not established by the proesecution  beyond doubt  and  therefore  it  was  not possible to say that they belonged to the deceased. The High Court, therefore, acquitted the respondent.      After going  through the  evidence what we find is that the recovery  of money  and the  wrist watch stated to be of the deceased  were recovered by the Investigating officer in presence of  Amar Singh  - PW 10 - Maternal grandfather of t he deceased.  Thus, the  recovery was not in presence of any independent person.  It was  for this  reason that  the High Court did  not think  it safe  to place  any reliance on the recovery evidence.  The evidence  of PW  5 -  Kulwinder Kaur even if  believed only  establishes that the accused and the deceased left  together at  5.00 p.m.  on 18.2.85. From that circumstance alone  no  inference  can  be  drawn  that  the respondent had committed the murder of Kulwinder Singh.      We therefore  see no  good reason to interfere with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

acquittal order  passed by  the High  Court. The  appeal is, therefore, dismissed.