The Supreme Court acquitted Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh in a double murder case from 1999. The appellant was alleged to be the driver of the vehicle used by assailants who murdered two brothers. The Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key witnesses PW-7 and PW-10 had omissions in their police statements, and the appellant was not initially arrayed as an accused. The defense presented evidence showing the appellant was considered innocent during initial investigation. The Court noted animosity between the families and found no direct evidence linking the appellant to the crimes. The conviction by the Trial Court and affirmation by the High Court were set aside.
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh -- The Court found insufficient evidence to establish the appellant's involvement in the double murder that occurred on 14.10.1999 -- The prosecution relied on two key eyewitnesses, PW-7 and PW-10, but their testimonies contained fatal omissions -- PW-7's statement to police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) omitted the appellant's alleged act of dragging the victim -- PW-10's statement was not recorded by police at the first instance -- The appellant was summoned under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court on 24.08.2000, not arrayed initially -- The defense witness DW-1, a DSP, testified that the appellant was found innocent during initial investigation -- The vehicle allegedly used in the crime was seized but not connected to the appellant -- The Court noted a history of animosity between the families involved -- The conviction was based on vague statements without proper corroboration -- The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish incriminating circumstances against the appellant
The criminal appeal was allowed -- The judgment convicting the appellant was set aside -- The appellant was acquitted of all charges -- If in custody, the appellant was to be released forthwith -- If on bail, bail bonds were to be cancelled
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 18
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) of 2026) (@Diary No. 46882 of 2024)
Date of Decision: 2026-01-06
Case Title: The Issue of whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt in a double murder case
Before Judge: Ahsanuddin Amanullah J. , K. Vinod Chandran J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 23
Advocate(s): Mr. Shoeb Alam appearing for the appellant and Mr. Siddhant Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the State
Appellant: Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh
Respondent: State of Punjab
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction in double murder case
Remedy Sought: Appellant seeking acquittal and setting aside of conviction
Filing Reason: Appellant convicted by Trial Court and affirmed by High Court for involvement in double murder
Previous Decisions: Trial Court convicted appellant -- High Court initially acquitted but then affirmed conviction on remand -- Supreme Court hearing appeal
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt Whether the eyewitness testimonies were reliable given omissions in police statements Whether the appellant's involvement in the crime was established
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant's counsel argued insufficient evidence and omissions in police statements -- State counsel acknowledged issues with judgment but sought conviction -- Both sides agreed judgment was incomprehensible and remand would have been ideal
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt with reliable evidence -- Omissions in police statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. can be fatal to prosecution case -- When evidence is vague and uncorroborated, benefit of doubt must go to accused -- Mere presence as driver of vehicle, without overt criminal act, is insufficient for conviction in murder case
Judgment Excerpts: The omission is fatal when we consider that the appellant was not arrayed at the first instance -- Pertinent is the fact that there was no statement recorded of the said witness by the police at the first instance -- We find absolutely no reason to uphold the conviction of the appellant -- We are inclined to acquit the appellant finding no incriminating circumstance against him
Procedural History: Double murder occurred on 14.10.1999 -- FIR registered on 15.10.1999 -- Trial Court convicted appellant -- High Court initially acquitted but then affirmed conviction on remand -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeal -- Supreme Court allowed appeal and acquitted appellant
