Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh vs State Of Punjab

Non-Reportable 2026 INSC 23 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) of 2026) (@Diary No.46882 of 2024)

Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant-accused and the learned Government Advocate

appearing for the State were ad idem that the impugned

judgment is slightly incomprehendable; a remand would

have been ideal. But, once the conviction by the Trial Court

was reversed and the accused acquitted by the High Court,

then a remand was made in which the impugned judgment

Signature Not Verified affirming the conviction was passed, which has persuaded Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.01.06 16:45:24 IST Reason: us to go into the merits. The offense is of the year 1999, a

Page 1 of 7 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. Diary No.46882 of 2024 double murder having occurred on 14.10.1999 at about

06:00 pm and an FIR having been registered at 10:15 am on

the very next day. Only one of the accused is in appeal

before us, who was alleged to be the driver of the vehicle in

which the assailants came and whose role in the crime

proper, as we will presently see, was not fully established

considering the entire circumstances.

4. We looked into the records and heard the learned

Senior Counsel, Mr. Shoeb Alam appearing for the

appellant and Mr. Siddhant Sharma, learned Government

Advocate for the State.

5. Briefly stated, both the murders occurred on

14.10.1999, when the assailants were alleged to have come

in a Tata Mobile 207 of blue colour and near the bus stand at

Village Poonia, Shingara Singh son of Ujagar Singh @ Jagar

Singh was shot by Sukhdev Singh @ Deba and Dhalwinder

Singh @ Bhinder. The two accused, other than the appellant,

were armed with .315 bore rifle. The appellant herein,

Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh was alleged to be the

driver of the vehicle. The son having been shot dead in front

of his father, it is the testimony of the father, PW-7, that he

Page 2 of 7 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. Diary No.46882 of 2024 immediately boarded a bus, to inform his people and on

reaching home, he found his wife and daughter-in-law

crying aloud, apprising him of the murder of the other son,

Balkar Singh, by the very same accused, when the deceased

was coming back to his home in his scooter. The dead body

of the victim was kept in the neighboring house where he

was shot dead. There too the appellant was accused to have

been driving the Tata Mobile, in which the other accused

were travelling.

6. The prosecution went to trial producing two key

witnesses PW-7 and PW-10, the father of the persons

murdered and the wife of one of the brothers murdered. The

recoveries were with respect to the other accused and not

the appellant herein. The learned Government Advocate

pointed out that the other accused are absconding and

hence, the consideration may be confined to the appellant

herein.

7. On going through the evidence of the key witnesses,

we find that PW-7, the father though spoke of the appellant

having driven the vehicle, did not speak of any overt act on

the part of the appellant resulting in a direct involvement in

Page 3 of 7 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. Diary No.46882 of 2024 the crime proper. The recorded testimony of PW-7 indicates

that he only identified the other two accused standing in the

dock, as the persons who shot his son in the first incident.

The narration indicates that he also spoke of the appellant

having dragged the son before he was shot by the other two.

In cross-examination, he was specifically confronted with

the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’)

and the omission in the same of a statement of the appellant

having alighted and dragged his son having been recorded

by the police. The omission is fatal when we consider that

the appellant was not arrayed at the first instance and was

summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. by order dated

24.08.2000 of the Trial Court.

8. PW-10, the wife of the deceased who was shot dead

later, projected as an eyewitness spoke only of the

appellant having driven the vehicle. She has identified the

appellant along with the other accused in the dock.

Pertinent is the fact that there was no statement recorded of

the said witness by the police at the first instance, after the

inquest was carried out. They were admittedly present in

Page 4 of 7 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. Diary No.46882 of 2024 the premises, but no statement is seen recorded under

Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

9. Pertinent is also the fact that DW-1, the DSP who was

examined for the defense clearly stated that PW-7 and PW-

10, despite his summoning them failed to cooperate in the

investigation. He carried out the investigation at the first

stage and also filed a report without the appellant in the

array of accused, as testified by him before court, finding

him to be innocent.

10. The Tata Mobile, which was involved in both the

incidents, we find, was seized by the police, on the next day,

testified by PW9, the Reader of the DSP (R) Jalandhar who

was in the police party. The witness speaks of the other

accused being in the vehicle and not the appellant. There is

nothing incriminating against the appellant found in the

vehicle and the vehicle was not even produced before the

Court or got identified by the eyewitnesses. The father of

the registered owner of the Tata Mobile, who had

possession of the same, since his son was abroad, was

examined, on the side of the defense, as DW-2 who

categorically stated that he had not entrusted the vehicle to

Page 5 of 7 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. Diary No.46882 of 2024 either of the accused. There is no connection established

between the owner of the vehicle and the appellant herein.

11. In the totality of the circumstances, we find absolutely

no reason to uphold the conviction of the appellant as held

by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The

deposition of PW-7 reveals a history of animosity between

two families related to each other. The members of one of

which was the accused and in the other group, there was

active participation of the sons of PW-7. Both groups, as is

seen from the evidence of PW-7 were involved in illegal

activities and each have implicated the others in criminal

cases by information given to the police. Based on such

information, raids were conducted and recoveries made of

contraband and narcotics, which also led to constant clashes

between the two groups. Vengeful actions were taken

against each other which have also resulted in the death of

members of both the gangs. On an overall conspectus, we

are inclined to acquit the appellant finding no incriminating

circumstance against him but for a vague statement of the

appellant having driven the vehicle and the involvement in

Page 6 of 7 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. Diary No.46882 of 2024 the crime proper omitted to be stated to the police and for

the first time stated before Court.

12. The criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the

judgment only insofar as the appellant herein. We make it

clear that we have dealt with only the lack of incriminating

circumstances against the appellant and have not spoken on

the evidence or the testimony with regard to the other

accused.

13. The appellant is acquitted of the crime alleged, if the

appellant is in custody, he shall be released forthwith and if

already released on bail, the bail bonds shall be cancelled.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……...…….……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

……...…….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI JANUARY 06, 2026.

Page 7 of 7 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. Diary No.46882 of 2024