'HC missed the woods for the trees,': Supreme Court acquits jawan of killing officer

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a constable from the Indian Reserve Battalion in the 2014 case of gunning down his boss, a Sub Inspector, for alleged denial of leave, saying the High Court missed the woods from the trees while upholding his conviction.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma ordered forthwith release of appellant Jai Prakash Yadav, who has been in custody for 12 years, saying there was no convincing evidence on record to suggest that it was he, and none else, who killed the officer.

In the case, the court noted there was no eyewitness in the present case and the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The bench cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra (1984), which stated that every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence must be conclusively established. Even a single missing or weak link may prove fatal to the prosecution’s case. The chain must be so complete as to point unerringly to the guilt of the accused, and to no one else. Where, on the same set of evidence, two views are reasonably possible, the benefit of doubt must necessarily be extended to the accused.

The bench noted the informant, a hawaldar, testified that he was on duty with four other constables at the time of the incident. Upon hearing gunfire, he came out of the guard room, went to the spot, and found the appellant coming from the side of the room of the deceased and holding an INSAS rifle (later confirmed to be the weapon of offence). The appellant then confessed to killing the deceased.

The bench said, it is clear that he, at best, is a post occurrence witness. However, in his cross examination, the informant admitted that he identified the appellant only from his voice and not by clear visual recognition due to the prevailing darkness at the time.

"This materially undermines the reliability of his testimony, particularly in light of his earlier assertion that he had seen the appellant holding the weapon. We, thus, find it difficult to rely upon his testimony,'' the bench said in its judgment on April 6, 2026.

The High Court, however, said, this witness' version in chief could not be demolished by the appellant in the course of cross-examination. "We wonder, what more was required of the appellant; indeed, we regret to note that the High Court missed the woods for the tree,'' the bench said.

The other witnesses were either hearsay witnesses or have been declared hostile, the court recorded.

The bench further noted, it was an admitted position that the appellant had been issued a rifle bearing butt no 329. However, a jawan testified that the seized rifle (the alleged weapon of offence) bearing butt no 351 belonged to him, but about ten days prior to the incident, while performing guard duty, his rifle had been inadvertently exchanged with another rifle bearing butt no 329.

"This has to be accepted with a pinch of salt. It is difficult to accept that in a disciplined force, exchange of rifles allotted to two jawans would remain unnoticed for long ten days. Significantly, the duty register for 18th May, 2014 was not led in evidence. In the absence of other cogent evidence to support this circumstance, in our opinion, it would not be safe to sustain the conviction on mere suspicion,'' the bench said.

While acquitting the appellant, the bench granted him liberty to seek reinstatement before his appointing authority with such other consequential benefits, if found fit to discharge duties.