NDLI: Naresh @ Nehru Vs. State of Haryana

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code Evidence
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration:Conviction of the appellants for offences punishable u/s.302 r/ws.149, IPC based on the statement of PW-9, as an eyewitness tothe crime, if justified.Evidence – Of eyewitness – When not to be relied upon:Held: Evidence of the eye-witness should be of very sterling qualityand calibre and it should not only instil confidence in the court toaccept the same but it should also be a version of such nature thatcan be accepted at its face value – In the present case, testimony ofPW-9 (cousin of the deceased) was shrouded with inconsistenciesand he had not named the appellants in the FIR – Contradictionsin PW-9’s statement were glaring – Prosecution failed to prove theguilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Non-considerationof the lacuna in the prosecution case in proper perspective by theTrial Court and the High Court resulted in miscarriage of justice –Conviction of the appellants unsustainable – Judgement of Courtsbelow set aside – Appellants acquitted of the offences alleged.[Paras 9.1-9.3, 10 and 11]Evidence – CCTV footage – Reliance placed to convict theappellants and co-accused personsHeld: Said evidence could not have been relied upon as it wasinfested with serious doubts and the very manner in which itcame into existence itself raised a serious doubt not only about itssource but also about the presence of the appellants at the sceneof crime – PW-8 who made a video from his mobile phone of theCCTV footage on 22.04.2016 claimed to have handed over therecorded CD (Ex.P.3) to the police on 01.06.2016 – However, thevideo (CD) was not forwarded by the police to the Forensic ScienceLaboratory – PW-8 claims to have downloaded the video fromhis mobile phone and transferred to his laptop and then preparedCD (Ex.P.3) – Neither laptop nor mobile phone was produced byprosecution or had been seized by the police during the courseof investigation – Trial court’s conclusion is based on inconsistentevidence and there is lack of clarity in the evidence of PW.8 – Heidentified his signature on the certificate Ex. P-L (furnished asrequired u/s.65-B, Evidence Act) which was prepared by policeofficial who was not examined – Further, Ex.P.3 was played in thetrial court and the Sessions Judge recorded that from the video clipsthe faces of assailants and complainants were not decipherable– PW-8 admitted in his cross-examination that certificate Ex.PLwas prepared by a police official, and he had affixed his signatureto Ex.PL – He also admitted that faces of the assailants werenot visible and identifiable and the registration numbers of themotorcycles were also not visible – Investigating Officer (PW-15)also admitted in his cross-examination that faces of the accusedare not identifiable from the video – The said video according toPW-8 was taken from the CCTV camera located in the house of ‘D’who was never cited as a witness by the prosecution – EvidenceAct, 1872 – s.65-B. [Paras 9.4, 9.5]Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25, 26 – Confessional statement ofthe accused and co-accused were recorded when they werein police custody:Held: Such confessional statements would become inadmissiblehaving regard to the provisions of ss.25, 26 – s.25 makes it clearthat no confession made to a police officer shall be proved asagainst a person accused of any offence – Likewise, s.26 statesthat any such statement is inadmissible if given while in policecustody. [Para 9.6]Penal Code, 1860 – s.149:Held: In order to attract s.149, it must be shown by the prosecutionthat the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common objectby such unlawful assembly – It must be within the knowledge of theother members as one likely to be committed in furtherance of thecommon object – Even if no overt act is imputed to the accused,the presence of the accused as part of the unlawful assembly issufficient for conviction – Inference of a common object has tobe drawn from various factors such as the weapons with whichthe members were armed, their movements, the acts of violencecommitted by them, and the end result – In the present case, HighCourt held that every member had inhibited the common intentionto accomplish the unlawful object – On facts, the motive allegedwas a quarrel that ensued between one ‘R’ and ‘N’ with ‘A’ (thedeceased) and ‘S’ on the day of Dulhandi and ‘R’ was said tohave threatened to kill ‘A’ – This factor clearly discloses that theappellants herein were not involved in the fight that occurred onthe day of Dulhandi and as such no motive could be attributed tothe appellants – Prosecution failed to prove that the appellantsshared a common object with other members of the alleged unlawfulassembly – There is no evidence to connect the appellants withthe deceased or the co-accused – No overt act was attributed tothe appellants – PW-9 admitted in his cross-examination that noneof the accused except ‘P’ had caused injury to the deceased andthere was only a single shot fired from the pistol. [Para 10]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 889
Petitioner	Naresh @ Nehru
Respondent	State Of Haryana
SCR	[2023] 13 S.C.R. 771
Judgement Date	2023-10-09
Case Number	1786

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Naresh @ Nehru Vs. State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ravi @nehru

State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh @ Ram Naresh

Amar Singh Vs. The State (nct of Delhi)

Gamparai Hrudayaraju Vs. State of Ap. Thr. Public Prosecutor

Naresh Giri Vs. State of M.p.

Nehru @ Jawahar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Anil Vs. State of Haryana

Naresh @ Nehru Vs. State of Haryana

Naresh @ Nehru Vs. State of Haryana

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Ravi @nehru

State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh @ Ram Naresh

Amar Singh Vs. The State (nct of Delhi)

Gamparai Hrudayaraju Vs. State of Ap. Thr. Public Prosecutor

Naresh Giri Vs. State of M.p.

Nehru @ Jawahar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

Gurmukh Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Anil Vs. State of Haryana

Naresh @ Nehru Vs. State of Haryana