Raj Pal Singh vs. Rajveer

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 1442

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 809 OF 2014

RAJ PAL SINGH
…APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS


RAJVEER & ORS.
…RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

The appellant is the original complainant who by
preferring this appeal, seeks to call in question judgment and
order dated 10.10.2012 of the High Court of Allahabad in
Criminal Appeal No.8119 of 2007, whereby the High Court set
aside the judgment and order of conviction dated 23.11.2007
passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge,
Signature Not Verified
Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial Case No.291 of 1997 against the
Digitally signed by
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2025.12.16
18:04:55 IST
Reason:
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein for the offence under Section 302
Page 1 of 18


read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
sentencing them to life imprisonment with imposition of fine of
Rs.1,50,000/- each and in default to undergo further
imprisonment for two years.
2. As the High Court acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 3,
the appellant-complainant is aggrieved.
3. The appellant-complainant happens to be the father of one
Praveen Kumar serving as a captain in the Indian Army, when
Praveen was allegedly murdered by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
The prosecution story runs to state inter alia that one Major
Adjutant Akash Johar wrote a letter on 31.05.1996 to the District
Magistrate, Ghaziabad mentioning about the hardships faced by
the appellant concerning the family dispute regarding the
division of land with appellant and his brother – uncle of the
victim Praveen, Dharam Pal - Respondent No. 2 herein and one
V . S.Verma, and that Dharam Pal was in possession of private
arms and used to threaten Captain Praveen’s father - the
appellant herein.
3.1 It was stated that on 07.06.1996, the village Chowkidar
informed the Police in writing that around 7 a.m. the Panchayat
Page 2 of 18


was to be held in the village for resolving the property dispute
between Dharam Pal and Raj Pal, who were real brothers.
During the Panchayat meeting, Praveen Kumar and his father –
Raj Pal Singh - the appellant herein, reached at the place, which
led to heated exchanges. Dharam Pal left the Panchayat and
proceeded towards his house.
3.2 It was further stated that said captain Praveen and his
father-in-law, armed with rifle and hockey-stick respectively,
followed Dharam Pal, that Dharam Pal fired upon Praveen from
his gun. Praveen sustained gunshot injury. He was taken to
hospital in serious condition by the appellant and other members
of the family. The information was registered as Crime Case
No.19 of 1996 alleging offence under Section 307, IPC, at
Bahadur Garh Ghaziabad Police Station.
3.3 The Appellant submitted an application on 08.06.1996
before the Police stating that his elder brother’s son - Rajveer
was dissatisfied with the partition of the properties taken place
between the Appellant – Raj Pal and his two brothers named
Vijay Pal and Dharam Pal. It was stated that Complainant was
residing alone in his house and his son Praveen was employed
Page 3 of 18


in military service as Captain and that he had informed his son
about the hostile attitude of Dharam Pal and his son.
3.4 It was further stated that said Praveen reached home on
07.06.1996 and on the same day, he left for Hapur Village to
attend marriage. On next day, that is, 08.06.1996 at around 8
a.m., Praveen Kumar returned home after attending the
marriage. At that time, Dharam Pal, his son Rajveer and Sudhir
forcibly dragged Praveen Kumar towards the first floor from the
parking area with an intention to kill him. It was alleged that
Sudhir had with him a country-made pistol.
3.5 As Praveen started shouting, other persons named Raj Pal
Singh – appellant herein, Jal Singh, Omkar Singh and Balbir
Singh rushed to the spot to save him. Sudhir, who had country-
made pistol, threatened to shoot. Dharam Pal instigated Rajveer
to kill and Rajveer shot at Praveen from the licensed gun of
Dharam Pal. The injured Praveen was declared dead when taken
to the Military Hospital. The Crime Case No.19 of 1996,
registered earlier for the offence under Section 307, IPC, was
converted into offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34, IPC.
Page 4 of 18


4. Heard learned counsel Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh for the
appellant and learned counsel Mr.Mushtaq Ahmed for the
respondents.
5. The trial Court, upon considering the evidence led before
it, convicted the respondent nos.1 to 3 herein for the offence
under Section 302 r/w Section 34, IPC, and sentenced them as
above. In the appeal, the High Court appreciating the evidence
on record inter alia noticed the oral evidence by informant – Raj
Pal (PW-1) and Jal Singh (PW-2), who were the eyewitnesses,
then deposed on the incident inter alia that when the family
returned from the marriage party by car at around 8 a.m.,
Dharam Pal, Rajveer and Sudhir dragged Praveen. At that time,
all the three had caught hold of Praveen and after dragging
Praveen, pulled and pushed him up the staircase.
5.1 According to the story told by PW-1 and PW-2, Sudhir
threatened them with country-made pistol which was in his
hands. The witnesses further stated that Dharam Pal instigated
his son Rajveer to fire at Praveen and that Rajveer fired at
Praveen from the gun of his father Dharam Pal. Praveen fell
down having been injured by the gunshot. It was then stated that
Page 5 of 18


Dharam Pal hit Praveen by hockey-stick. It was deposed that at
that time, villagers arrived at the spot and the accused persons
ran away. The injured Praveen was taken to the Military
Hospital where he was declared dead.
5.2 In addition to the above witnesses, Col . Ms. Savitri Datti,
Senior Registrar Military Hospital (PW-4), Sub-Inspector Man
Singh (PW-5) who had prepared the inquest report, and one
Devi Deen (PW-6) who had registered the report submitted by
the Chowkidar of the village, were examined. Lt. Colonel
Dr.Sandeep Rastogi (PW-7) stated that before Praveen could be
admitted in the hospital he was already dead. Chowkidar named
Tunda (PW-8) who submitted the report dated 08.06.1996
before the police station was examined. He stated that he had
not seen the act of firing. The other witnesses included the
Record Keeper (PW-9) in the hospital and one Sub-Inspector -
Vijay Kumar Singh (PW-10) who recorded the statement of the
witnesses and the Second Investigating Officer Inspector Rajiv
Kumar (PW-11).
5.3 Amongst the different witnesses included Charan Singh
(DW-1), who was a resident of the same village and one Lal
Page 6 of 18


Singh (DW-2), who stated that there was enmity between the
accused and the complainant.
5.4 The medical evidence is in the form of Dr.V.K. Bajpayee
(PW-3), who performed the postmortem. The postmortem
report prepared by him on 09.06.1996 indicated the following
ante-mortem injuries, (i) Wound of penetrating firearms bullet
in left thigh 3cm x 2 cm x muscle deep in upper portion of left
thigh, outer side blackish colour with friction. Direction was
below and forward and was upper side. (ii) Wound of
penetrating many pellets in the area of 10 cm x 6 cm in front of
right thigh 0.33 cm x0. 6 cm to 0.66cmx 0.5cm c muscle deep.
15cm x towards right knee below forward and inward. (iii) One
incised wound 4cm x 1 cm in the upper portion of the head
towards right 10 cm above. (iv) One scrap wound 4cm x 3 cm x
in upper backside of the right hand. In the opinion of the Doctor,
the death of deceased Praveen occurred due to shock and
haemorrhage.
5.5 In their statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC, the
accused persons denied the charges stating that they were
falsely implicated due to enmity. Dharam Pal stated in his
Page 7 of 18


statement under Section 313, CrPC, that on 07.06.1996, when
the Panchayat was taking place, the complainant and his
supporters started assaulting the accused persons and, therefore,
he left the Panchayat to go to his room on the first floor of the
house when he heard the sound of gunshot. The statement of
Rajveer was that he was employed as Professor in Shimbhawli
College, staying at that place since last 12 years and was not
present in the village at the time of the incident. The third
accused - Sudhir stated in his statement under Section 313,
CrPC that he was a distant relative of Rajveer and was not
present when the incident took place. He stated that he was a
student of B.Sc. in the very college where Rajveer was
Professor. All of them stated that they had been falsely
implicated in the case.
6. The High Court, in appreciating the above cluster of
evidence in their interaction, found that it was conspicuous that
in the report dated 08.06.1996, which was filed by complainant
Raj Pal on 12.06.1996, nothing was mentioned about the
inflicting of injury on Praveen by hockey-stick by any of the
accused including Dharam Pal, though it was mentioned that
Page 8 of 18


accused had hockey-stick with him. The role of Dharam Pal, as
mentioned in the said report, was only that he and Sudhir, with
the help of arms which they had been allegedly carrying, acted
to restrain the complainant and other village people when they
tried to interfere with the act of dragging of Praveen.
6.1 It did not come out from the evidence, even inferentially,
that any of the accused had any weapon, much less the pistol or
gun in their hand when they were dragging Praveen towards the
stairs. According to the story projected, at the time when the
accused persons were pulling Praveen on the staircase, a
country-made pistol was with Sudhir. While the complainant
stated that he saw all the accused pushing and dragging Praveen,
he could not pinpoint as to whether the clothes of Praveen
Kumar were torn.
6.2 The dragging of Praveen by Dharam Pal did not inspire
credence, inasmuch as the High Court rightly observed that
Dharam Pal was 65-year-old person and was a cancer patient,
for whom it was not possible to pull and drag Praveen – an
armyman. Furthermore, as per the story, the complainant
noticed that Sudhir had with him country-made pistol in his
Page 9 of 18


hand when all the accused were dragging Praveen towards the
staircase from the parking area.
6.3 The staircase had the width of three to five feet and the
dragging was done nearly for 20 steps, noted the High Court.
Upon appreciation of the evidence, the same was found to be
not credible as it was not possible to believe that a serving
captain in the Indian Army, who was a young man, could be
dragged in the manner as suggested, by three persons.
6.4 It was noticeable also that the First Information Report
did not mention that Dharam Pal had any hockey-stick in his
hand at the time of the dragging of Praveen. It is also not
disclosed as to wherefrom such hockey-stick, if any, was
brought. Similarly, Jal Singh (PW-2) also admitted in his
evidence that he was not aware as to how and from where
Sudhir had picked up the country-made pistol.
6.5 While Jal Singh (PW-2) stated that he saw Sudhir to be in
possession of pistol at the time of dragging of Praveen, it was
not suggested in the evidence anywhere as to wherefrom Sudhir
got the pistol. The High Court reasoned that if the suggestion
was that Rajveer had gone to collect the country-made pistol, it
Page 10 of 18


would imply that there were only two persons who held Praveen
and dragged him, which was even further unbelievable since
one of them was 65 years of age suffering from cancer.
6.6 The reading of the evidence suggested, rightly observed
the High Court, that none of the accused persons had any
firearm in their hands at the time they were allegedly dragging
Praveen Kumar towards and thereafter, upwards the staircase.
PW-2 suggested that the staircase was not in L-shape but had a
turning.
6.7 It is also noticed by the High Court in the report of
Chowkidar of the village (PW-8) , it was the information given
about the time at the first point of time, what was mentioned
was that Praveen Kumar followed Dharam Pal and after
Dharam Pal left the Panchayat, Dharam Pal fired upon Praveen
in defence. However, the report submitted by the complainant –
father - appellant herein, the role of firing was not attributed to
Dharam Pal but it was stated that upon exhorting of Dharam Pal,
Rajveer had fired upon Praveen Kumar.
7. In other words, in acquitting the respondents, the
following aspects weighed with the High Court,
Page 11 of 18


(a) The entire story of the prosecution did not inspire
credibility and was highly improbable when it was
claimed that a serving captain in the Indian Army -
Praveen Kumar, was dragged by three persons for 14
steps and thereafter, pulled him to a staircase which was
only three to five feet wide.

(b) One of the accused was aged 65 years and had been
suffering from cancer.

(c) The alleged possession of the country-made pistol with
Sudhir was not explained. The complainant did not see
any weapon with any of the Respondents when they
started dragging the deceased. Possession of the pistol and
its use by Sudhir are not convincingly born out from the
evidence.

(d) The allegation that Dharam Pal fetched a hockey-stick to
strike blows on the head of Praveen was also not
explained in the evidence. There was no suggestion as to
how and from where Dharam Pal fetched the hockey-
stick.
Page 12 of 18



(e) The High Court refused to believe as probable that
Rajveer went inside the room, picked up gun, whereas the
other two succeeded in holding Praveen down at the
staircase.

(f) The Complainant submitted an application dated
08.06.1996 only on 12.06.1996 before the Police. In
addition to this discrepancy in the dates, there was no
mention in the said complaint regarding the incident,
which took place on 07.06.1996. In the said complaint-
report, it was stated that Praveen shot Dharam Pal and
Dharam Pal shot Praveen, however, Dharam Pal was not
attributed with the role of shooting.


(g) The investigation and prosecution were not in the
direction of the case disclosed to the effect that Dharam
Pal fired at Praveen on 07.06.1996.
8. Thus, the evidence adduced as above by the prosecution
suffered from material discrepancies and the whole story put up
lacked credence. Although the alleged weapon of offence, the
licensed firearm belonging to Dharam Pal - Respondent No. 2,
Page 13 of 18


was recovered, no endeavour appears to have been made to
subject the same to expert ballistic examination in order to
establish whether the bullets or pellets which caused the fatal
injuries had been fired therefrom. Upon a close consideration of
the evidence appreciated by the High Court, the reading by the
High Court is a plausible reading justifying the conclusion. The
view taken by the High Court does not appear to this Court to
be in any way unreasonable or one which would warrant
substitution by this Court.
9. It is well settled that the guilt of the accused and the
commission of the offence by the accused have to be established
beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances should suggest
“must or should” and not “may be”. It was stated by this Court
1
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra , that
the distinction between “may be proved” and “must be proved”
is not one of mere grammatical, but it is a legal distinction.
1
9.1 In Shivaji , the Court observed,
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be
and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long
and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions..”
(Para 19)


1
[1973 (2) SCC 793]
Page 14 of 18



9.2 It is a well-settled principle enunciated by series of
judgments of this Court that there must exist “substantial and
compelling reasons” to upset the acquittal. Once the court
acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is
reinforced. Thereafter, the interference by the appellate court
would be minimal and has to be guided by strong and cogent
reasons. Reversal of acquittal should not be a matter of course
just because the other view is considered to be possible by the
appellate court. Even when the appellate court re-appreciates
the evidence while dealing with the judgment and order of
acquittal, the innocence attributed to the accused acquitted
from the charges of offences would be a weighty rebuttable
factor.

2
9.3 In Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka ,
this Court laid down on the scope of powers of the appellate
court to re-appreciate, review or reconsider the evidence and
interfere with the acquittal. It was held that where two views
are possible on the evidence on record, one taken in favour of
the accused acquitting him should not be disturbed by the

2
[2007 (4) SCC 415]
Page 15 of 18


Appellate Court. In that case, the trial Court had given the
benefit of doubt to the accused finding that the prosecution
had not examined the material witnesses, that the testimony of
the witnesses was unreliable and inconsistent, that the
prosecution story was unnatural and that the knife produced
before the Court as muddamal article was not the same which
was used by the accused in inflicting injuries etc. There were
also other circumstances which created doubt about the
prosecution story. This Court held that the High Court was in
error in interfering with the possible view taken by the Trial
Court on the evidence and the reversal of the order of acquittal
by the High Court was not justified.

2
9.4 In Chandrappa after elaborate discussion as to how
the appellate court should approach the order of acquittal
while exercising appellate jurisdiction, certain principles
regarding the powers of the appellate court to be exercised
against an order of acquittal, were laid down,
“(i) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.

(ii) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such
power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may
Page 16 of 18


reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of
law.

(iii) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court
to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.

(iv) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly , the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly , the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(v) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
(Para 42)
2
9.5 It was observed in Chandrappa as under,
“...the trial court felt that the accused could get benefit of
doubt, the said view cannot be held to be illegal, improper
or contrary to law. Hence, even though we are of the
opinion that in an appeal against acquittal, powers of the
appellate court are as wide as that of the trial court and it
can review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire evidence
brought on record by the parties and can come to its own
conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the present case,
the view taken by the trial court for acquitting the accused
was possible and plausible. On the basis of evidence,
therefore, at the most, it can be said that the other view was
equally possible. But it is well established that if two views
are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one
Page 17 of 18


favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court,
it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court. In this
case, a possible view on the evidence of prosecution had
been taken by the trial court which ought not to have been
disturbed by the appellate court. The decision of the
appellate court (the High Court), therefore, is liable to be
set aside.”
(Para 44)

10. When in the present case, the High Court has recorded
acquittal of the respondents reversing the decision of the trial
Court by appreciating the relevant aspects emerging from the
evidence and thereby arriving at a plausible conclusion,
acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 3, on such basis, this Court is
well-inclined to accept and maintain the same.
11. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, interlocutory
applications shall not survive.

…………………………………..,J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]

…………………………………..,J.
[ N.V. ANJARIA ]
New Delhi;
16.12.2025.
Page 18 of 18