Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideSurinder v. The State of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 1888 of 2011
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 8 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Alok Aradhe
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed: the trial court's judgment of 01.08.2000 and the High Court's judgment of 04.11.2019 set aside; the appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC and his bail bonds discharged (paras 21-24).
Key holdings
- The sole eyewitness admitted standing outside a closed door and was not trustworthy (paras 15-16).
- Human blood on the clothes, without a match to the deceased's blood, proved nothing (paras 17-18).
- Nothing linked the appellant to the death, a view reinforced by his wife's acquittal (para 19).
- Conviction of 2000, affirmed in 2019, set aside; appellant acquitted (paras 20-22).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
On 04.04.1998 a man went to the appellant's house in Rohtak to pay a milk bill and was killed there; an eyewitness, PW-12, told the complainant that the appellant and his wife had attacked him with a gandasa (para 6). The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life on 01.08.2000, but acquitted his wife (paras 2, 9). The High Court dismissed his appeal on 04.11.2019 (para 3). The Supreme Court had released him on bail in 2011 after more than nine years in custody, and in 2026 appointed an amicus curiae when his legal aid counsel resigned (paras 4-5).
Court's Findings
PW-12 said in chief that he saw the appellant strike the victim on the head with a gandasa, but in cross-examination admitted he never entered the house and stood outside the closed main gate, the house door also being closed, and neither intervened nor raised an alarm (paras 14-15). If the door was closed, he could not have witnessed the attack, so his testimony was not trustworthy (para 16). The forensic report found human blood on the appellant's clothes but no blood group, the deceased's serology was inconclusive, and the gandasa sample had disintegrated (paras 17-18). Unless the blood on the clothes matched the deceased's, no definite conclusion about his involvement could be drawn (para 18). The prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he alone caused the death; nothing linked him to it, a view reinforced by his wife's acquittal (para 19).
Legal Principle
A conviction resting on a sole eyewitness cannot stand where his own cross-examination shows he could not have seen the occurrence, and human bloodstains on seized articles prove nothing unless matched with the deceased's blood; without other evidence linking the accused, he gets the benefit of doubt (paras 16-19).
