In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted three men—Rajendra Singh, his son Bhupender Singh, and son-in-law Ranjeet Singh—who were convicted by the Uttarakhand High Court for the 2000 murder of Pushpendra Singh. The apex court, in its judgment dated October 7, 2025, set aside the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the lack of reliable eyewitness identification and contradictions in prosecution evidence. This case, stemming from a land dispute turned fatal, highlights the judiciary’s insistence on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The incident dates back to June 3, 2000, in Nanak Matta, Uttarakhand. According to the prosecution, a morning altercation over digging a field escalated when the accused allegedly chased and attacked Pushpendra Singh with swords and a kanta (sharp-edged weapon) inside a villager’s house. Pushpendra, son of complainant Diler Singh, died on the spot. The accused were arrested shortly after, with weapons recovered based on their disclosures.
The trial court acquitted the trio in Session Trial No. 215 of 2000, citing insufficient evidence. However, the High Court reversed this in 2013, convicting them under Section 302 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment plus a ₹10,000 fine each. The Supreme Court, hearing Criminal Appeal Nos. 476-477 of 2013, scrutinized the ocular evidence closely.
Key to the acquittal was the testimony of Amarjeet Kaur (PW-7), the housewife who witnessed the assault. She described three unknown assailants entering her home and attacking the victim but could not identify them. No identification parade was conducted. The court found contradictions in statements from Diler Singh (PW-1) and Jwala Singh (PW-2), deeming them “chance witnesses” whose presence at the scene was doubtful. PW-1 claimed to have seen the chase and assault, but PW-7 stated he arrived half an hour later. His blood-stained clothes were not seized, further eroding credibility.
The recovery of weapons was also dismissed as inconclusive. While swords and a kanta were found on the accused’s pointing, no forensic match linked the blood on them to the victim. The court invoked Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, ruling that only the discovery aspect is admissible, not any confession implying guilt.
Justice Pankaj Mithal, authoring the judgment with Justice Prasanna B. Varale, noted that motive from the land quarrel existed but was insufficient without cogent proof. The High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal without finding its findings perverse. Granting the benefit of doubt, the court discharged the appellants’ bail bonds.
This verdict underscores the principle that acquittals should not be lightly overturned and stresses the need for robust identification in criminal cases. It also references precedents like Pulukuri Kottaya vs. King Emperor (1947) and Manjunath vs. State of Karnataka (2023) on evidence admissibility.
Case Details:
• Case Title: Rajendra Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal Etc.
• Citation: 2025 INSC 1193
• Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
• Appeal Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 476-477 of 2013
• Judges: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
• Date of Judgment: October 7, 2025
• Original Incident Date: June 3, 2000
Click HERE for full judgment
Lawcutor 