Supreme Court acquits three men in 2000 Uttarakhand murder case, restores trial court’s order

Case Name: Rajendra Singh and Others v. State of Uttaranchal
Date of Judgment: October 07, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1193, Criminal Appeal Nos. 476–477 of 2013
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the three appellants who had been convicted by the Uttarakhand High Court for the 2000 murder of Pushpendra Singh. The Court held that the identity of the accused was not established beyond doubt, the eyewitness testimony of the deceased’s father was unreliable and inconsistent with the independent witness, and the recovery of weapons did not conclusively link the appellants to the crime. It ruled that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal without showing its findings were perverse.

Summary: The appellants, a father, son, and son-in-law, were accused of murdering Pushpendra Singh after an altercation over land-digging on June 3, 2000. The trial court acquitted them in 2007, but on a government appeal the Uttarakhand High Court convicted them under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

The prosecution case rested on the testimony of the deceased’s father (PW-1), who claimed to have witnessed the appellants chase and kill his son inside a neighbor’s house, corroborated by his brother-in-law (PW-2). An independent witness, Amarjeet Kaur (PW-7), the lady of the house, testified that she saw three assailants enter and attack the deceased but could not identify them. Her evidence suggested that PW-1 and others arrived only after the incident. The Court found serious contradictions between PW-1 and PW-7, noting PW-1’s presence was doubtful. Further, no independent villagers or shopkeepers were examined despite their alleged presence.

The recovery of swords and a “kanta” based on the accused’s disclosure was also disbelieved, as the weapons were recovered from open areas, not matched with the victim’s blood, and statements made in custody were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, with only the fact of recovery admissible under Section 27.

Decision: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants’ identity or link them to the crime, and that suspicion could not replace proof. It ruled that the High Court wrongly reversed the acquittal without showing perversity in the trial court’s findings. Accordingly, the conviction and life sentence were set aside, the trial court’s acquittal restored, and the appellants were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Their bail bonds were discharged.