1997 INSC 1108
                                                   State of Punjab

                                                           Vs

                                                     Sarup Singh

                                         (G. T. Nanavati, V. N. Khare JJ)

                                                      27.11.1997

                                                     JUDGMENT

NANAVATI, J.

1. The State is challenging acquittal of the respondent in this appeal.

2.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 the evidence of recovery of currency notes and wrist watch of
the deceased, on the basis of a declaration made by the accused, held him guilty. The appellant was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3.The High Court held that Gian Singh was a chance witness and therefore it was risky to rely upon
his evidence without any corroboration. The High Court also held that identify of currency notes
and the wrist watch was not established by the prosecution beyond doubt and therefore it was not
possible to say that they belonged to the deceased. The High Court, therefore, acquitted the
respondent.

4.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 the 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.

5.We therefore see no good reason to interfere with the acquittal order passed by the High Court.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.