IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 704 OF 2018
J AI  P RAKASH  T IWARI              …A PPELLANT ( S )
V ERSUS
S TATE   OF  M ADHYA  P RADESH        …R ESPONDENT ( S )
JUDGMENT   
N.V.     R AMANA , CJI.   
1. The   present   appeal   arises   from   the   judgment   dated
26.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Jabalpur   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1870/2005.   The   High
Court   dismissed   the   appellant’s   appeal   against   judgment
dated   18.08.2005   passed   by   the   First   Additional   Sessions
Judge, Sidhi in Sessions Trial No. 119/2003, confirming his
conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(‘IPC’) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959   (‘Arms
Act’). 
2. The   appellant   was   sentenced   to   undergo   three   years   of
rigorous   imprisonment   with   fine   of   Rs.500/­   under   Section
1 REPORTABLE

307 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo three years of
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/­ under Section
27   of   the   Arms   Act   and   one   year   of   rigorous   imprisonment
with   fine   of   Rs.500/­   under   Section   25   of   the   Arms   Act.
Appellant has undergone approximately 1 year, 7 months of
his  sentence and  was  released on  bail by  this  Court during
the pendency of the present appeal.
3. The   factual   matrix   as   per   the   prosecution   is   that,   on
14.02.2003   at   about   10:30   p.m.,   the   appellant   and   co­
accused   went   to   the   complainant’s   house   and   called   him
outside. When the complainant came out, the appellant fired
at him with a country­made pistol. The complainant (PW2) is
stated to  have run  into  the house and  escaped injury  while
the   appellant   and   co­accused   fled   from   the   spot   on   their
motorcycle.   The   complainant’s   mother   (PW3)   was   allegedly
present   in   the   house   at   the   time   of   the   incident   and   the
complainant’s neighbours (PW1, PW10, PW11) arrived upon
hearing the sound of gunfire. The firearm used in the alleged
incident is stated to have been recovered from the appellant,
along with an empty cartridge.
2

4. The   prosecution   charged   the   appellant   and   co­accused
under   Section   307/34   IPC   and   Sections   25(1B)   (a)   and
Section   27(1)   of   the   Arms   Act.   After   perusal   of   evidence   on
record   and   examination   of   witnesses,   the   trial   Court
convicted   and   sentenced   the   appellant   as   specified   above
while   acquitting   the   co­accused,   as   the   prosecution   had
failed to prove the charges against him. By way of impugned
order   dated   26.05.2017,   the   Madhya   Pradesh   High   Court
confirmed   the   appellant’s   conviction   and   sentence.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court in appeal by
way of special leave.
5. The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   contended   that
the entire case of the prosecution is based on the testimony
of   the   complainant   (PW2)   and   the   hearsay   evidence   of   his
mother (PW3), who is an interested witness, and there is no
corroborative   evidence   or   independent   witness   to   support
their   testimonies.   He   has   submitted   that   the   prosecution
witnesses to both the incident as well as the alleged recovery
of the firearm have turned hostile. He has also relied on the
testimony  of  the  IO  (PW9)  to  state  that  no   empty  cartridges
3

or   pellets   were   recovered   from   the   place   of   incident,   which
casts a doubt upon the prosecution’s case. Learned counsel
for the appellant has submitted that the complainant has a
close   nexus   with   the   police   department   as   his   father   is   a
retired   Inspector   and   his   brother   and   sister   are   also   police
officers.   He   also   submits   that   besides   the   complainant,   no
witness has been produced by the prosecution who had seen
the appellant at the site of the incident. 
6. Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent­State,   on   the   other
hand, has supported the concurrent judgments of conviction
given   by   the   courts   below.   He   has   stated   that   there   is   no
error in relying on the statements of the complainant (PW2)
and   his   mother   (PW3),   whose   testimony   is   corroborated   by
ballistic   evidence   and   seizure   of   the   firearm   and   empty
cartridge from the appellant. 
7. Heard   the   learned   counsel   on   merits   and   perused   the
material on record.
8. The   prosecution   strongly   relies   upon   the   statement   of   the
complainant   and   his   mother.   A   perusal   of   the   statement   of
the   complainant   reveals   that   the   accused­appellant   had
4

come in front of his house and upon asking as to why they
were   here,   the   accused­appellant   and   his   companion   kept
quiet. The complainant asked them to leave. Thereafter, the
accused allegedly took out his country made pistol and fired
a shot at the complainant. The accused and his companion
then sped away on their bike. The complainant had already
run   inside   the   house   and   was,   therefore,   unharmed.
Subsequently, the   mother  of   the  complainant   and  his  three
neighbours came to the scene of the occurrence. 
9. From the evidence on record, it is clear that, apart from the
complainant   and   his   mother,   the   other   independent
witnesses   namely   Rajat   Shukla   (PW1),   Amit   Bhasin   (PW10)
and   Vikas   Shukla   (PW11)   have   denied   witnessing   the
incident.   Even,   the   Sub­Inspector­Rahul   Sharma   (PW9),   in
his   cross   examination,   has   stated   that   the   abovementioned
witnesses  during  their  police  statements  under   Section  161
of   the   Cr.P.C,   had   indicated   that   they   had   not   seen   the
accused­appellant firing the shot. 
10. Under  the above  circumstances, the  only  evidence available
to prove the presence of the accused at the scene, apart from
5

the testimony of the complainant himself, is that of PW3, his
mother. Although, the counsel on behalf of the accused has
argued   that   the   testimony   of   the   aforesaid   witness   should
not   be   taken   into   consideration   as   she   is   an   “interested”
witness,   it   is   an   established   principle   of   law   that   a   close
relative   cannot   automatically   be   characterized   as   an
“interested”   witness.   However,   it   is   trite   that   even   related
witness   statements   need   to   be   scrutinized   more   carefully.
[See   Bhaskarrao  v.  State  of  Maharashtra ,  (2018) 6  SCC
591 ;  State of Rajasthan v. Madan , (2019) 13 SCC 653 ]
11. In the above context it is pertinent to note the statement of
the   complainant   (PW2)   and   the   mother   of   the   complainant
(PW3):
Deposition of PW2
In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated by PW2 that:
“…   On   14 th
  February   2003   at   10.30   pm,   I
was   at   my   home.   At   that   very   time,
Jaiprakash   and   Pintu   had   come   in   front   of
my house on motorcycle and blew horn twice
whereupon   I   had   come   outside.   When   I   had
come   outside   my   house   I   had   seen   Pintu
Dubey   on   driving   seat   and   Jaiprakash   as
pillion   rider,   Motorcycle   was   on.   I   asked
Pintu   that­what   is   the   purpose   of   coming,
whereupon   he   replied   that­Jaiprakash   has
brought  me with  him, so  ask him. So, I  had
asked Jaiprakash but he did not reply. It felt
6

like   Jaiprakash   was   intoxicated   So   I   asked
them   to   leave   and   that   I   will   talk   to   them
later.   Then  Pintu  raced the  bike.  As soon  as
Pintu   raced   the   bike,   at   that   very   time
Jaiprakash had taken out the Country made
pistol   and   fired   on   me   and   they   had   gone
away   abusing.   By   that   time,   I   had   run   and
entered the house.  
Thereafter,   two   three   people   from   the
locality   had   come.   My   mother   also   had
come.      My   neighbours   named   Amit   Bhasin,
Vikas Shukla, Rajat Shukla had come there.
My   mother   asked   me   that­what   had
happened, so I told her about the incident.”
 
Deposition of PW3
In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated by PW3 that:
“…   the   incident   is   of   14 th
  February,   2003   at
about   10.30   pm.     I   was   at   my   home.     The
voice   of   boys   had   come   from   outside,   sound
of   motorcycle   also   had   come.     Sound   was
coming   from   outside   that   –   Sandeep   come
outside,   whereupon   Sandeep   had   gone
outside.        I   had   followed   him   as   well.        Two
boys   were   sitting   on   motorcycle,   motorcycle
was   start.     It   was   sounding   as   if   someone
was abusing in loud voice and they had fired
during   conversation   itself.     So   Sandeep   had
come inside immediately when fired.”
In cross­examination, it is stated by PW3 that:
“I   was   in   the   verandah   first.     I   had   come
outside   when   I   heard   sound   of   gunshot .
The   verandah   is   open   from   where   the   outer
scene   is   visible.   It   is   not   true   to   say   that   I
had   merely   heard   the   bang……   and   even   I
had witnessed it.”
7

Then again in cross­examination, it is stated:
“….  I was not acquainted with the accused
persons   beforehand .     It   is   not   true   to   say
that I have not seen the incident…”
(emphasis supplied)
12. It must be noted that the complainant clearly states that his
mother   came   to   the   spot   after   the   incident.   On   the   other
hand,   in   the   chief   examination,   his   mother   states   that   she
followed   the   complainant   when   he   went   outside   and
therefore,   she   witnessed   the   incident.   In   her   cross­
examination,   she   states   that   she   came   outside   when   she
heard the gunshot. However, she saw the  incident  from  the
verandah.
13. Contradictions aside, it must be noted that the incident took
place   at   around   10:30   pm   in   the   night.   It   is   no­where
mentioned   that   the   accused   and   PW3   were   familiar   to   the
extent   that   she   could   recognize   him   in   a   fleeting   moment
while   he   was   speeding   away   on   his   bike.   She   also   failed   to
provide any discernable features of the accused­appellant. In
fact, she specifically states that she was not acquainted with
the   accused   persons.   It   seems   highly   improbable   that   the
mother   of   the   complainant,   PW3   instantly   recognized   the
8

appellant­accused   at   night.   No   effort   has   been   made   to
conduct   an   identification   test,   to   associate   the   accused­
appellant with the alleged incident. After closely scrutinizing
the   statement   of  PW3, mother  of  the   complainant,  we  must
state that the same does not inspire confidence. 
 
14. The High Court and the trial Court have laid great emphasis
on   the   recovery   of   a   motorcycle   and   a   country­made   pistol
from the possession of the accused­appellant. 
15. In this context, it is pertinent to note the statements of PW5
and PW8, the witnesses to the seizure:
Deposition of PW5
In Examination­in­Chief, it is stated that:
“Police   had   caught   Jaiprakash   and   found
one   country   made   pistol   while   searching
him…..   I   do   not   remember   whether   any
documentation  had  been  done  or  not.     Then
Jaiprakash had been held in the lockup and
I   had   returned   back.     Police   had   not   seized
any vehicle before me.
It  is   important  to  note  that  at   this  stage,
the AGP sought permission to ask leading
question   to   the   witness   declaring   him
hostile ……   I   do   not   remember   this   today
that   whether   a   motorcycle   had   been   seized
from accused Jaiprakash before me or not .”
In Cross­Examination, it is stated that:
9

“I   know   Sandeep   Upadhyaya.     I   have   good
terms   with   him….   The   neighbours   of
Jaiprakash were not present when the Police
had done  proceedings, then  said that people
were   there   but   he   did   not   know   them.     No
neighbours   of   Jaiprakash   had   signed   the
documents.     Police   had   not   called   the
neighbours of Jaiprakash.”
Deposition of PW8
In Examination­in­Chief :
Police   had   seized   one   country   made   pistol
from   accused.     No   other   thing   other   than
pistol   had   been   seized   before   me   nor   had
the   accused   stated   to   seize   the   same   in
my presence.
It   is   not   true   to   say   that   one   black   coloured
Splendor   motorcycle   wherein   MP   17   MB
9735   was   written   had   not   been   seized   from
accused Jaiprakash before me .”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The   sub­Inspector­Rahul   Sharma   (PW9)   has   stated   in   his
evidence   that   the   alleged   motorcycle   and   the   country   made
pistol   were   seized   from   the   complainant’s   house   based   on
the disclosure statement of the accused­appellant. However,
the   witnesses   to   the   seizure   (PW5   and   PW8)   have   given
varying statements regarding the same. In fact, PW5 clearly
stated   that   there   was   no   recovery   of   bike,   and   he   was,
therefore,   declared   hostile   by   the   prosecution.   Moreover,
although PW8 has stated that no other thing other than the
10

pistol   was   seized,   he   contradicts   himself   by   stating   that
indeed a black coloured splendor motorcycle was seized. The
aforesaid   contradiction   in   the   statement   of   PW8   cannot   be
stated   to   be   minor.   The   same,   therefore,   does   not   inspire
confidence.
17. It also needs to be noted that there has been no recovery of
any   pellet,   empty   cartridge,   or   any   remains   of   the
gunpowder   from   the   spot.   In   the   absence   of   a   ballistic
report,   there   is   no   clear   connection   between   the   seized
weapon   and   the   alleged   incident.   Moreover,   even   the
complainant   had   given   a   vague   description   of   the
motorcycle. Neither the license number nor the colour or any
other   distinguishing   features   have   been   indicated   by   the
complainant.   Even   here,   there   is   no   linking   factor   between
the seized vehicle and the alleged incident.
18. Another   important   issue   that   merits   consideration   in   the
present appeal is that the accused­appellant, in his Section
313 statement, stated that he and the complainant belonged
to   opposing   student   parties.   The   accused­appellant   claimed
that   owing   to   the   animosity   pertaining   to   the   elections,   the
11

accused­appellant   was   falsely   implicated   in   the   matter.   He
also   produced   two   witnesses   to   prove   his   alibi.   DW1   and
DW2   have   stated   that   the   accused   appellant   was   in   his
village   as   his   mother   was   unwell.   Moreover,   the   accused­
appellant also pointed out to the Court that the father, sister
and brother  of the complainant were all a part of the police
department.   The   accused­appellant   also   brought   to   the
notice   of   the   Court     the   fact   that   the   complainant   had   also
registered   another   criminal   case   against   the   accused­
appellant in which he already stands acquitted.
19. In   the   case   at   hand,   the   alternate   version   put   forth   by   the
appellant­accused   could   not   be   ignored.   Section   313   CrPC
confers   a   valuable   right   upon   an   accused   to   establish   his
innocence   and   can   well   be   considered   beyond   a   statutory
right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21
of   the   Constitution.[See   Reena   Hazarika   v.   State   of
Assam , (2019) 13 SCC 289]
20. This   Court   in   the   case   of   Satbir   Singh   v.   State   of
Haryana ,   (2021)   6   SCC   1,   while   emphasising   upon   the
12

significance of Section 313 CrPC, has delineated the duty of
the trial Court and held thus:
“22.   It   is   a   matter   of   grave   concern   that,
often,   trial   courts   record   the   statement   of   an
accused   under   Section   313   CrPC   in   a   very
casual   and   cursory   manner,   without
specifically   questioning   the   accused   as   to   his
defence.   It   ought   to   be   noted   that   the
examination   of   an   accused   under   Section
313   CrPC   cannot   be   treated   as   a   mere
procedural   formality,   as   it   is   based   on   the
fundamental   principle   of   fairness.   This
provision   incorporates   the   valuable
principle   of   natural   justice   —   “ audi
alteram partem ”, as it enables the accused
to   offer   an   explanation   for   the
incriminatory   material   appearing   against
him.   Therefore, it imposes an obligation on
the   part   of   the   court   to   question   the
accused   fairly,   with   care   and   caution.   The
court   must   put   incriminating
circumstances before the accused and seek
his   response.   A   duty   is   also   cast   on   the
counsel of the accused to prepare his defence,
since   the   inception   of   the   trial,   with   due
caution…”
(emphasis supplied )
21. In   the   context   of   the   abovementioned   precedents,   it   is
imperative to have a look at the evidence of the defence:
“E XAMINATION   OF  A CCUSED  N O .1   
Q3 On   dated   14.2.03   at   about   10:30   O’
clock   in   the   night   you   accused   and   co­
accused Pintu @ Padamdhar Dubey had come
13

to   house   of   complainant   Sandeep   Upadhyay
(PW2) situated at Arjun Nagar, Uttar Karodiya
by   Hero   Honda   Motorcycle   bearing   number
MP 17B/9795.  What do you say?
Ans: It is incorrect.  I had gone to village .
D EFENCE   PLEA   OF   ACCUSED   
When   accused   Jaiprakash   Tiwari   s/o   Girija
Prasad   Tiwari   has   been   called   upon   to   enter
his defence, then he states that:­
I   had   not   casted   vote   in   the   favour   of
Sandeep’s candidate in the election of college.
Sandeep   was   in   favour   of   N.S.U.I.     I   was   in
favour   of      Vidhyarthi   Parishad      (Student
Council).     Due   to   this   reason,   I   have   been
falsely implicated    .
On   asking   from  the   accused   that   whether   he
has   to   give   defence   evidence,   then   he   states
that :­ I have to give defence evidence.
D EPOSITION   OF  DW1    
E XAMINATION ­ IN ­C HIEF   
1. I   know   accused   Jaiprakash   and   his   parents.
Their house is at Maata; at Karaudia in Sidhi;
at   village   Amahatola   and   Hanumangarh,
Veldah as well.  On 14.02.2003,  I had reached
the   house   of   the   accused   at   9­9:15   hours   at
North Karaudia and taken him to his house at
village   Maata   on   motorcycle   as   his   mother
had   fallen   sick   at   village   Maata.     We   had
reached   Maata   at   11­11.30   hours.     Then
Jaiprakash   Tiwari   had   called   the   Jan
Swasthya Rakshak at about 12 hours and got
his mother treated.   Drip had been applied to
14

his   mother   till   morning   on   15    th
     and   at   that
time two to four people were there along with
Jaiprakash.
Deposition of DW2
E XAMINATION ­ IN ­C HIEF   
1. I   know   accused   Jaiprakash.     His   house   is   in
Sidhi   and   at   Maata   as   well.     On   14.2.2003,
Jaiprakash   was   at   village   Maata.     Mother   of
Jaiprakash   was   suffering   from   vomiting   and
diarrhea  and therefore as  per  my  information
Jaiprakash   has   been   at   village   Maata   from
11.00am till 8 am the other day on 15.2.2003 .
2. I   had   myself   seen   Jaiprakash   going   to   his
house.     I   am   neighbour   of   Jaiprakash.
Jaiprakash   had   been   called   from   Sidhi   to
Maata   by   Shankardayal   as   mother   of
Jaiprakash was not well.  I had heard after 4­
6 days that Jaiprakash had been arrested for
some incident of the said date .”
(emphasis supplied)
22. In   the  present   case,  the   accused   while  being  examined   had
stated himself that he had gone to his village on the date of
the   incident.   To   support  his   case,   he   produced   two   defence
witnesses who have corroborated his presence in the village.
Furthermore, the accused claimed to be falsely implicated in
the   case   owing   to   political   rivalry.   However,   without
scrutinizing the aforesaid plea of the defence, the trial Court
observes:
15

“10.   The   accused   Jayprakash   Tiwari   has
not   stated   anything   in   his   examination
that   he   has   been   falsely   implicated   in   the
case   by   the.   prosecution   witnesses   or   any
other   reason   or   motive   for   his   false
implication.      The evidence of the complainant
Sandeep   is   corroborated   by   the   evidence   of
Amit   Bhasin_PW_10   and   Vikash   ­PW­11   who
had   reached   the   place   of   occurrence
immediately   after   the   incident   and   in   such
situation   the   evidence   of   the   complainant
Sandeep   Upaddhyay   and   other   prosecution
witnesses   is   believable   and   it   is   proved   from
their evidence that on the date of incident the
accused   Jayprakash   Tiwari   had   fired   upon
the   complainant   Sandeep   Upaddhay   from
firearm   katta   with   knowledge   and   intention
under   such   circumstances   that   if   the
complainant   had   died   then   the   accused
Jayprakash Tiwari would be guilty of murder.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. In a similar  manner, the trial Court refused to weigh in the
evidence   of   alibi.   The   trial   Court   while   disbelieving   the
defense witnesses observes:
“14.   In   such   a   situation   the   defence   plea   of
the   accused   appears   to   be   an   afterthought .
From the perusal of the evidence of the defence
witnesses   Shankerdayal   Mishra_DW_l   and
Krushnakumar   Tiwari_PW­2   it   is   clear   that
both   ∙the   witnesses   are   the   neighbours   of   the
accused   and   residents   of   same   village.   Being
farmers and after a gap of two years they have
remembered   the   date   of   incident.   It   appears
that   these   witnesses   are   trying   to   save   the
16

accused   by   stating   his   presence   in   their
village .”
(emphasis supplied)
24. The   High   Court   without   independently   analyzing   the
aforesaid   statements   and   evidence,   upholds   the   finding   of
the Trial Court. The High Court observes that:
“ 22.   This   Court   is   in   agreement   with   the
findings   of   learned   trial   Court   that,   defence
taken by the appellant has not been suggested
any   prosecution   witness,   nor   stated   by   the
appellant   during   his   accused   statement   under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The   plea   of   alibi   has   been   taken   by   the
appellant is after thought. Hence, no benefit is
granted   in   favour   of   the   appellant   with   regard
to   plea   of   alibi.   Thus,   the   conviction   of   the
appellant   under   Section   307   of   IPC,   is   hereby
maintained. ”
25. In the present case, the courts below failed to scrutinize the
defence version put forward by the appellant­accused in his
Section 313 statement. The object of Section 313 of the Code
is   to   establish   a   direct   dialogue   between   the   court   and   the
accused.   (See   Asraf   Ali  v.   State   of   Assam ,   (2008)  16 SCC
328 )
26. The purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a
reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances
17

which  have  emerged  against  him  during  the   course  of  trial.
A   reasonable   opportunity   entails   putting   all   the   adverse
evidences   in   the   form   of   questions   so   as   to   give   an
opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and give
his explanation.  
27. If   all   the   circumstances   are   bundled   together   and   a   single
opportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he
may   not   able   to   put   forth   a   rational   and   intelligible
explanation.   Such,   exercises   which   defeats   fair   opportunity
are   nothing   but   empty   formality.   Non­fulfilment   of   the   true
spirit of Section 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice to
the   accused   and   the   Court   may   not   have   the   benefit   of   all
the     necessary   facts   and   circumstances   to   arrive   at   a   fair
conclusion. 
28. Such an omission does not  ipso facto  vitiate the trial, unless
the   accused   fails   to   prove   that   grave   prejudice   has   been
caused to him. Although the counsel on behalf the accused
has   not  proved   any   serious   prejudice   caused   to   him   due   to
failure   of   the   Court   in   framing   individual   circumstances;
however,   considering   the   long   pendency   of   the   matter   and
18

the right of the accused to have a fair and expeditious trial,
we   propose   to   proceed   and   decide   the   matter   on   its   own
merit.
29. It is an established principle of criminal law that the burden
of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt
is   upon   the   prosecution.   Where   an   accused   sets   up   a
defence or  offers an explanation, it is well­settled that he is
not required to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt
but   only   by   preponderance   of   probabilities.     [See   M.   Abbas
v.   State   of   Kerala ,   (2001)   10   SCC   103 ].   Further,   it   has
been   held   by   this   Court   in   Parminder   Kaur   v.   State   of
Punjab,   (2020)   8   SCC   811   that   “ once   a   plausible   version
has   been   put   forth   in   defence   at   the   Section   313   CrPC
examination   stage,   then   it   is   for   the   prosecution   to   negate
such defence  plea”. 
30. Moreover,   it   is   the   solemn   duty   of   the   courts   below   to
consider   the   defence   of   the   accused.   The   same   must   be
considered   with   caution   and   must   be   scrutinised   by
application   of   mind   by   the   judge.   The   Court   may   accept   or
reject   the   same,   however   it   cannot   be   done   cursorily.   The
19

reasoning   and   the   application   of   mind   must   be   reflected   in
writing.   However,   from   the   observations   extracted   above,   it
is   clear   that   the   courts   below   have   failed   to   undertake   this
solemn   duty.   Rather,   the   evidence   of   the   accused   has   been
dealt by the Court in a casual manner.
31. In   the   above   circumstances,   when   there   is   absence   of
independent evidence corroborating the statements made by
complainant,   serious   doubts   regarding   the   recovery   of   the
alleged   motorcycle   and   the   country   made   pistol,   no
connection   proved   between   the   alleged   recovered   items   and
the   alleged   incident,   and   the   plausible   version   put   forward
by   the   accused­appellant   in   his   Section   313   statement   has
not been satisfactorily  responded to by  the prosecution, the
case against the accused­appellant cannot be sustained.
32. It   is   the   duty   of   the   Court   to   separate   the   grain   from   the
chaff and to extract the truth from the mass of evidence. In
our   opinion,   the   case   of   the   prosecution   is   based   on   mere
conjectures   and   surmises.   The   High   Court   and   the   trial
Court   failed   to   consider   the   abovementioned   circumstances
while   rendering   the   judgment   convicting   the   accused.   The
20

evidence brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient
to   prove   the   case   against   the   appellant   beyond   reasonable
doubt. 
33. For   these   reasons,   the   appeal   is,   therefore,   allowed.   The
conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set
aside.   The   appellant   is   on   bail.   The   appellant   stands
discharged from the bail bonds.
............................CJI.
(N. V. RAMANA)
..…..........................J.
(KRISHNA MURARI)
.........…………….......J.
    (HIMA KOHLI)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 04, 2022.
21