SURESH & Anr. v. STATE OF HARYANA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 302, 307
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Arms Act, 1959 ss. 25, 27, 30
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 315
Judgment
taken into consideration and should be given due regard, if his version inspires confidence and the same is supported by surrounding circumstances. The evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny. PW-14 has not explained as to why he was standing near the Bristol Prison so early at 4:00 AM in the morning of a peak winter day, when the first bus to the village was at 7:00 AM. Moreover, it is doubtful that A-3 would have brandished a gun, while travelling in the auto-rickshaw. It is suspicious that even after getting to know that victim-deceased was killed at Hisar, PW-14 did not reveal to anybody that he saw the deceased in the company of the accused- appellant in the morning travelling towards Hisar. Indeed, it is quite unbelievable that a man, during peak of north Indian winter, would wait at 4 A.M for a bus, which is scheduled to leave at 7:00 AM morning. These suspicious circumstances impugn the general trustworthiness of PW-14. Therefore, this Court cannot accept the evidence of this witness as being credible. [Paras 44, 45] [981-C-D, F-H]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.