The Supreme Court has granted acquittal to a bus driver in a double murder case after noting that there was no incriminating circumstance against him and the omission of the accused’s involvement in the Section 161 CrPC statement of the father of the deceased sons was fatal.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment affirming the conviction.

Referring to the version of the father whose sons were killed, the Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, “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.”

“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 the crime proper omitted to be stated to the police and for the first time stated before Court”, it added.

Senior Advocate M. Shoeb Alam represented the Appellant, while AOR Siddhant Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Apex Court was dealing with a case of double murder which occurred in the year 1999. The assailants were alleged to have come in a Tata Mobile and near a bus stand, 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 a rifle. The appellant was alleged to be the driver of the vehicle. The son having been shot dead in front of his father, it was the testimony of the father, PW-7, that he immediately boarded a bus, to inform his people. On reaching home, he found his wife and daughter-in-law crying aloud, apprising him of the murder of the other son by the very same accused. The dead body of the victim was kept in the neighbouring house where he was shot dead. There, too, the appellant was accused of driving the Tata Mobile, in which the other accused were travelling. It was brought to the Court’s notice that the other accused were absconding and hence, the consideration might be confined to the appellant.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that, though the father spoke of the appellant having driven the vehicle, he did not speak of any overt act on the part of the appellant resulting in a direct involvement in the crime. The recorded testimony of the father indicated that he only identified the other two accused standing in the dock as the persons who shot his son in the first incident.

The Bench noticed that the wife of the deceased, who was shot dead later, projected as an eyewitness spoke only of the appellant having driven the vehicle. She had identified the appellant along with the other accused in the dock. It was also noted that one of the witnesses spoke of the other accused being in the vehicle and not the appellant. As per the Bench, nothing incriminating against the appellant was found in the vehicle, and the vehicle was not even produced before the Court or identified by the eyewitnesses.

On a perusal of the facts, the Bench found that there was a history of animosity between the 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 deceased sons. Both groups were involved in illegal activities, and each had implicated the others in criminal cases through information given to the police. The Bench noted that vengeful actions were taken against each other, which also resulted in the death of members of both gangs.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench acquitted the appellant of the crime alleged.

Cause Title: Jaswinder Singh @ Shinder Singh v. State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 23)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate M. Shoeb Alam, Advocate Anmol Kheta, AOR Tanya Srivastava

Respondent: AOR Siddhant Sharma, Advocates Vikram Choudhary, Prafull Bhardwaj

Click here to read/download Judgment




Justice Ahsanuddin AmaahJustice K. Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.