RAJANversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA

          [2025] 9 S.C.R. 744 : 2025 INSC 1081

                           Rajan
                             v.
                    The State of Haryana
              (Criminal Appeal No. 3904 of 2025)
                       02 September 2025
       [J.B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the
courts below convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence
punishable u/ss.302/34 IPC and ss.25, 27 of the Arms Act; and
delay at the instance of the High Court in uploading the judgment
after a period of about 2 years 5 months.

                            Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25, 27 –
Murder – Appellant and one co-accused guilty of the alleged
offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – One
co-accused absconded and three other co-accused acquitted
of all the charges – High Court upheld the order passed by
the trial court – Correctness:
Held: Trial court and the High Court well appreciated the oral version
of the two eyewitnesses in its true perspective and correctly – All
other relevant aspects of the matter looked into threadbare – Just
because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by the
appellant not recovered or discovered u/s.27 of the Evidence Act
at any point of time during the course of the investigation would
not render the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses doubtful –
Once the case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence,
motive pales into insignificance – Despite there being a delay of 2
years 5 months in uploading the judgment by the High Court, the
oral testimony of the two eyewitnesses inspires confidence and
nothing on record in the form of any intrinsic evidence to render
their testimony doubtful. [Paras 30, 35, 40, 42, 45, 48]
Judicial deprecation – Delay at the instance of the High
Court in uploading the Judgment after a period of about 2
years 5 months – Is a matter of grave concern – Serious
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          745

                      Rajan v. The State of Haryana


     cognizance taken of the delay at the instance of the High
     Court – Practice of few High Courts to pronounce the operative
     part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a
     substantial length of time uploading the reasoned judgment,
     has been deprecated – This practice deprives the aggrieved
     party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal
     more particularly in criminal matters wherein the appeal is
     dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction
     passed by the trial court – Thus, there should be no delay
     at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order
     more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is
     pronounced. [Paras 41, 43, 48]
     Evidence – Ocular evidence – Principles for appreciation of
     ocular evidence in a criminal case – Stated. [Paras 32-34]

                             Case Law Cited
     Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra [2023] 6
     SCR 851 : (2023) 13 SCC 365; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev
     Singh Talwandi [1984] 2 SCR 50 : (1984) 1 SCC 596; Zahira
     Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [2004] 3
     SCR 1050 : (2004) 4 SCC 158; Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana
     [2008] 2 SCR 80 : (2008) 7 SCC 96; Ajay Singh and Anr. v. State
     of Chhattisgarh and Anr. [2017] 1 SCR 286 : (2017) 3 SCC 330;
     Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
     (2021) 12 SCC 603; Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State
     of Gujarat and Ors., 2024 INSC 801 : [2024] 10 SCR 2227; K.
     Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil and Ors., 2022
     INSC 1025 : [2022] 7 SCR 425; Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001]
     Supp. 1 SCR 298 : (2001) 7 SCC 318 – relied on.
     Indrajeet Yadav v. Santosh Singh and Another [2022] 3 SCR
     73 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 461; State through the Inspector of
     Police CBI, ACB, Chennai v. S. Murali Mohan & Anr., decided
     on 01-10-2024; State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others
     [2011] 10 SCR 823 : (2011) 9 SCC 115; Krishna Mochi and
     Others v. State of Bihar [2002] 3 SCR 1 : (2002) 6 SCC 81;
     Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs. [2001] 1
     SCR 948 : (2001) 3 SCC 179; Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State
     of UP and Ors., 2025 INSC 1039 : [2025] 8 SCR 1525; State
     of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi [1984] 2 SCR 50 : (1984) 1
     SCC 596 – referred to.
746                                                         [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                                List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of
       Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                             List of Keywords
       Delay of 2 years 5 months in uploading the Judgment; Oral
       testimony; Absconded; Ocular version of the eyewitnesses; Direct
       evidence; Motive; Appreciation of ocular evidence; Evidence of
       an injured witness; Evidence of the eyewitnesses; Discovery or
       recovery of weapon.

                             Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       3904 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2016 of the High Court
       of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLA No. 443 of 2003

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Sanjay Jain, Akash Singh, Akshay
       Nagarajan.
       Advs. for the Respondent:
       Deepak Thukral, A.A.G., Samar Vijay Singh, Aman Dev Sharma,
       Ms. Sabarni Som, Sandeep Saxena, Gorav Arora, Gaj Singh.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order

1.     Delay condoned.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the
       High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 18-2-2016
       in Criminal Appeal No.D-443-DB of 2003 by which the appeal filed
       by appellant – herein against the Judgment and Order of conviction
       passed by the Trial Court came to be dismissed.
4.     It appears from the materials on record that a First Information
       Report came to be registered with the City Sirsa Police Station dated
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         747

                      Rajan v. The State of Haryana


     22-7-1998 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with
     Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) respectively and Sections
     25 and 27 of the Arms Act respectively. The FIR came to be registered
     by one Balbir Singh, an injured eyewitness to the incident.
5.   The FIR reads thus:-
           “The statement of Shri Balbir Singh son of Shri Chanan
           Singh Rajput resident of Dhudhiawali now residing at
           14/949. Addl. A.D.C. Colony, that I am working as an
           agriculturist in village Dhudhiawali, Shiv Dutt Singh and
           Bishan Singh, the sons of my uncle (Tau) Narain Singh
           reside in A.D.C. Colony, Sirsa. Today in the morning, I
           had also arrived at Sirsa from village Dhudhiawali. I had
           gone to meet Shiv Dutt Singh and Bishan Singh in A.D.C.
           Colony, where Bishan Singh met in the house when I
           enquired from Bhishan Singh about the whereabout of
           Shiv Dutt, Bishan Singh had told me that Shiv Dutt has
           gone to National College, Sirsa to get admitted Amrinder
           Singh son of Amar Singh resident of band gate, Sirsa in
           B.A. Part-I and he asked me to accompany him there to
           meet him. I and Bishan Singh then reached at National
           college where Singh and Raj Kumar sons of Pokhar Dass,
           resident of Talwara Khurd came across on enquiry, Shiv
           Dutt Singh told that Amrinder Singh would get admission
           and he offered tea to us in the canteen thereupon, I Bishan
           Singh, Shiv Dutt, Sirsa and Raj Kumar proceeded to the
           canteen to take tea. At about 2.05. P.M. when we reached
           on the corner of building of Science block and Shiv Dutt,
           was going ahead of us and we were following him at some
           distance. Naresh Godara, resident of Kheowali carrying a
           DBBL gun of .12 bore in his hands, Vikas Kukna of D.C.
           Colony, Sirsa armed with a DBBL gun of .12 bore, Rajan
           son of Shao Ram, resident of Bajekan armed with a pistol
           and Rajdeep Singh son of Harbhagwan Singh resident of
           Canal colony, Sirsa armed with a sword arrived there from
           the opposite directions and on seeing Shiv Dutt Naresh
           Godara have exhorted him to be cautious that they would
           teach him a lesson for inflicting injuries to his brother
           Hanuman and for opposing them in the college elections.
           Thereupon, Rajan has fired a shot from his pistol at Shiv
748                                                     [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       Dutt Singh but Shiv Dutt Singh escaped unhurt. Thereafter,
       Naresh Kumar and Vikas have fired one shot each from
       their respective guns simultaneously at Shiv Dutt Singh
       which hit him on the chest region and the abdominal region
       on the front side and on receiving the firearm injuries, Shiv
       Dutt Singh fell down on the ground, I, Bishan Singh and
       Raj Kumar raised cries for help and then Rajan along with
       his pistol, Naresh Godara along with his gun and Vikas
       along with his gun ran away from the spot and Rajdeep
       threw his sword at the spot and ran away. Naresh Godara
       in furtherance of common intention of Rajan Vikas and
       Rajdeep armed with firearms and sword have fired shots
       at Shiv Dutt Singh to take avenge for causing injuries to
       his brother Hanuman on account of which Shiv Dutt has
       been rendered injured. I and Raj Kumar have shifted him
       to Civil Hospital, Sirsa in the car of Naveen Kedia for
       treatment where Shiv Dutt Singh has succumbed to the
       firearm injuries after about half an hour of the treatment
       by the doctor. Statement has been heard and the same is
       correct. sd/ Balbir Singh Attested Kulwant Singh P/ASI P.
       city, Sirsa dated 22-7-1998 police proceeding:- Today, I the
       ASI along-with H.C. Kulbir Singh No. 127 constable Bhagi
       Ram No. 373 and constable Raj Kumar No. 356, on receipt
       of a medical memo have rushed to civil hospital Sirsa
       where Shri Balbir Singh aforesaid happened to meet who
       got recorded his aforesaid and after recording the same,
       it was read over and explained to him who after admitting
       the contents thereof, to be correct put his signatures in
       English which I attest. The aforesaid statement discloses
       the commission of an offence punishable under Section
       102/34 of the IPC and Section 25/27s54/59 of the Arms
       Act. Therefore, a memo is being sent to the police station
       through constable Raj Kumar, No. 356 for registration of
       a case. After registration of the case, the FIR number be
       intimated and the special report of the case be got sent
       to the higher authorities. I am busy in the investigation
       in the Hospital sd/-Kulwant Singh.P/ASI P.S. City, Sirsa
       dated 22-7-1998 at 4.30 P.M. at G.H. Sirsa. At the police
       station, on receipt of the aforesaid memo, a case under
       the aforesaid offences has been registered and the police
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         749

                      Rajan v. The State of Haryana


           file along-with the original memo is being sent to Kulwant
           Singh ASI through the commuter constable. The copies of
           the FIR in the form of special report are being sent to the
           higher authorities through constable Balwant Singh
           No.867.”
6.   The investigation was undertaken and three persons came to be
     arrested, namely, Vikas, Naresh and the appellant – herein.
7.   On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed
     for the offences enumerated above.
8.   The Trial Court proceeded to frame charge against the appellant –
     herein and other co-accused. They all denied the charge and claimed
     to be tried.
9.   In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined the following
     witnesses:-
     1.    PW 1 Head Constable Subhash Chander
     2.    PW 2 Head Constable Ram Kumar
     3.    PW 3 Inspector Sube Singh
     4.    PW 4 Constable Satbir Singh
     5.    PW 5 SI Harbans Lal
     6.    PW 6 Constable Reghubir Singh
     7.    PW 7 ASI Kulwant Singh
     8.    PW 8 Balbir Singh
     9.    PW 9 Vijay Kumar, Clerk
     10. PW 10 Bishan Singh
     11. PW 11 Dr. Yogesh Sangwan
     12. PW 12 Charan Singh
     13. PW 13 Dr. G.S. Somani
     14. PW 14 Inspector Raghbir Singh
10. The prosecution also relied upon few pieces of documentary evidence.
11. Upon closure of recording of the oral evidence, the further statements
    of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the
750                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The appellant – herein
       claimed to be innocent and said to have been falsely implicated in
       the alleged crime.
12. The Trial Court in the course of recording of the oral evidence
    summoned one more accused invoking Section 319 of the CrPC. It
    appears that a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against two
    other co-accused. So, in all six individuals were put to trial including
    the appellant–herein.
13. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the oral as well as direct evidence
    on record held Vikas and the present appellant guilty of the alleged
    offence of murder and, accordingly, sentenced them to undergo life
    imprisonment. It also appears that during the pendency of the trial,
    a co-accused, namely, Naresh absconded and accordingly his trial
    came to be separated.
14. The three co-accused, namely, Jasbir Singh, Kirpa Ram and Rajdeep
    came to be acquitted of all the charges.
15. The appellant – herein being dissatisfied with the Judgment and
    Order of conviction passed by the Trial Court went in appeal before
    the High Court. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal,
    thereby affirming the Judgment and Order of conviction passed by
    the Trial Court.
16. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellant is here before
    us with the present appeal.
17. At this stage, it has been brought to our notice that the co-convict
    Vikas had come before this Court seeking to challenge the very same
    impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court and his
    Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed vide the Order dated
    3-12-2018.
18. Naresh who had absconded later came to be apprehended and was
    put to trial. At the end of his trial, he also stood convicted for the
    offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
    IPC respectively.
19. Naresh went in appeal before the High Court and his appeal has
    also been dismissed by the High Court. However, Naresh has not
    come before this Court with any Special Leave Petition.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                        751

                      Rajan v. The State of Haryana


20. We heard Ms. Tarannum Cheema, the learned counsel appearing for
    the appellant and Mr. Deepak Thukral, the learned counsel appearing
    for the State of Haryana.
21. We take notice of the fact that the entire case of the prosecution is
    based on direct evidence. The State examined two eyewitnesses,
    i.e., PW 8 and PW 10, namely, Balbir Singh and Bishan Singh
    respectively.
22. The principal argument canvassed on behalf of the learned counsel
    appearing for the appellant is that the impugned Judgment of the
    High Court deserves to be set aside because although the operative
    part of the Judgment was pronounced on 18-2-2016, yet the main
    Judgment came to be uploaded only after a period of 2 years and
    5 months. According to the learned counsel, this has caused grave
    prejudice to her client.
23. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on few orders passed
    by this Court taking the view that if there is gross delay in uploading
    the Judgment, then the matter should be remanded for fresh
    consideration. The orders relied upon are as under:
     (1)   Indrajeet Yadav vs. Santosh Singh and Another : 2022 SCC
           OnLine SC 461,
     (2)   Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra &
           Ors decided on 29-10-2020 and
     (3)   State through the Inspector of Police CBI, ACB, Chennai vs.
           S. Murali Mohan & Anr. decided on 01-10-2024.
24. At this stage, we should also look into the order passed by a coordinate
    Bench dated 11-1-2019 which reads thus:-
           “When the matter came up today for hearing, learned senior
           counsel for the petitioner submits that Criminal Appeal
           D-443-DB of 2003 was heard by the Division Bench of the
           Punjab and Haryana High Court on 18.02.2016 and the
           oral order dismissing the appeal was pronounced on the
           same day. However, the judgment, in fact, was uploaded
           on 18.07.2018 i.e. after 2 years and 5 months of dismissal
           Sonae Venthe appeal. Learned senior counsel further
           submits that the arguments advanced by him were also
           not reflected in the judgment.
752                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          To verify this aspect, we direct the Registrar (Judl.) of the
          Punjab and Haryana High Court to submit a report about
          the alleged allegation to this Court.
          List immediately after receipt of report from the Registrar
          (Judl.), Punjab and Haryana High Court.”
25. The second argument of the learned counsel is that although the
    appellant has been named in the FIR and a particular overt act
    has also been attributed by the two eye-witnesses in their ocular
    version, yet the presence of the appellant at the time of incident is
    not established as there has been no discovery or recovery of any
    firearm alleged to have been in the hand of the appellant herein.
26. In other words, the argument is that if it is the specific case of the
    prosecution that the appellant herein had a firearm in his hand and
    he fired a shot then in such circumstances the prosecution should
    have produced the said firearm as a muddamal so that it could have
    been sent to the ballistic expert for his report. In the absence of any
    such firearm it is not permissible in law to hold the appellant guilty
    of the alleged crime.
27. In such circumstances, referred to above, the learned counsel prayed
    that there being merit in her appeal, the same may be allowed and
    the matter be remanded to the High Court for fresh hearing of the
    criminal appeal.
28. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State
    would submit that no error not to speak of any error of law could
    be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the
    impugned Judgment. He would submit that there is no good reason
    to doubt or discard the ocular version of the two eyewitnesses. The
    Trial Court as well as the High Court have found their version to be
    true, trustworthy and reliable.
29. In the last, the learned counsel submitted that although it is true
    that there was a delay of 2 years and 5 months in uploading the
    Judgment yet that by itself would not render the impugned Judgment
    of the High Court erroneous or illegal in law.

       ANALYSIS
30. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
    having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           753

                      Rajan v. The State of Haryana


     we should not disturb the impugned Judgment passed by the High
     Court. The Trial Court and the High Court have well appreciated
     the oral version of the two eyewitnesses in its true perspective and
     correctly. All other relevant aspects of the matter have also been
     looked into threadbare.
31. There is no good reason for us to disbelieve PW 8 – Balbir Singh
    and PW 10 – Bishan Singh respectively.
32. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed
    or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The
    judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a
    criminal case can be enumerated as under:
           “I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
           approach must be whether the evidence of the witness
           read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
           impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
           Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping
           in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed
           out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
           out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
           given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of
           the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
           II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence
           had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general
           tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court
           which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to
           the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless
           there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not
           be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor
           variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
           III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
           possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts
           should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies
           in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with
           the credibility of his version that the court is justified in
           jettisoning his evidence.
           IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching
           the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking
754                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       sentences torn out of context here or there from the
       evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
       committed by the investigating officer not going to the root
       of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the
       evidence as a whole.
       V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations
       falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the
       evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements
       of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial
       scrutiny.
       VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess
       a photographic memory and to recall the details of an
       incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the
       mental screen.
       VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken
       by events. The witness could not have anticipated the
       occurrence which so often has an element of surprise.
       The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be
       attuned to absorb the details.
       VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to
       person. What one may notice, another may not. An object
       or movement might emboss its image on one person’s
       mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
       IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a
       conversation and reproduce the very words used by them
       or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport
       of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness
       to be a human tape recorder.
       X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration
       of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates
       by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time
       of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make
       very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again,
       it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies
       from person to person.
       XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
       accurately the sequence of events which take place in
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                             755

                       Rajan v. The State of Haryana


           rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable
           to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
           XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
           overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross
           examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up
           facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill
           up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.
           The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so
           operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or
           being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful
           and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
           XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent
           with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to
           amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has
           the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later
           statement is at variance with the former to some extent
           it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.” [See
           Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983
           Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of
           Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State
           of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)”
33. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated,
    the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required
    to be kept in mind:
           “(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time
           and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless
           there are material contradictions in his deposition.
           (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it
           must be believed that an injured witness would not allow
           the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
           (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary
           value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements
           are not to be discarded lightly.
           (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted
           on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or
           minor contradictions.
756                                                         [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
          embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness,
          then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment
          should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not
          the whole evidence.
          (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must
          be taken into consideration and discrepancies which
          normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of
          time should be discarded.”
34. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two
    principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case,
    it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in
    such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts
    deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently
    improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these
    considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses
    themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise
    their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will
    have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their
    evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a
    mere denial yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be
    examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea
    or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the
    prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in
    respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing
    the value of the prosecution evidence. (See: Balu Sudam Khalde
    and Another v. State of Maharashtra :(2023) 13 SCC 365)
35. Just because the firearm alleged to have been used and fired by
    the appellant–herein was not recovered or discovered under Section
    27 of the Indian Evidence Act at any point of time during the course
    of the investigation would not render the ocular version of the two
    eyewitnesses doubtful.
36. Discovery or recovery of the weapon as the case may be, if any,
    could be brought in aid of the other evidence which the prosecution
    has led at the time of trial.
37. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon few decisions
    of this Court. In the State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                             757

                       Rajan v. The State of Haryana


     reported in (2011) 9 SCC 115, this Court observed in paras 17 and
     18 respectively as under:
           “17. Learned senior counsel for the accused persons
           contended that in the absence of recovery of pellets from
           the scene of occurrence or from the body of the injured
           persons, it is highly doubtful as to the scene of occurrence
           and whether such incident did take place in the manner
           suggested by the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing
           for the complainant pointed out that though there was an
           entry in Malkhana Register (Ex. P31A) wherein it was stated
           that a sealed packet containing pellets was deposited but
           prosecution failed to lead any evidence on this point. It was
           also pointed out that though a report was received from
           the Forensic Science Laboratory, no evidence regarding
           recovery of the pellets was produced.
           18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional
           Advocate General appearing for the State that mere
           nonrecovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case
           of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence
           is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence regarding
           recovery of used pellets, blood stained clothes etc. cannot
           be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken
           place. As a matter of fact, we have already pointed out
           that the gun shot injuries tallied with medical evidence. It is
           also seen that Raghuraj Singh and Himmat Raj Singh, who
           had died, received 8 and 7 gun shot wounds respectively
           while Raj Singh (PW-2) also received 8 gun shots scattered
           in front of left thigh. All these injuries have been noted by
           the Doctor (PW-1) in his reports Exs. P-1 to P-4.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

38. In Krishna Mochi and Others v. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 6
    SCC 81, this Court observed in para 37 as under:
           “It has been then submitted on behalf of the appellants
           that nothing incriminating could be recovered from them
           which goes to show that they had no complicity with the
           crime. In my view, recovery of no incriminating material
           from the accused cannot alone be taken as a ground to
758                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          exonerate them from the charges, more so when their
          participation in the crime is unfolded in ocular account of
          the occurrence given by the witnesses, whose evidence
          has been found by me to be unimpeachable.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

39. The learned counsel also laid much stress on motive. According to
    her, there was no motive for the appellant – herein to commit the
    alleged crime.
40. We find no substance in the aforesaid submission because once the
    case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence, motive pales
    into insignificance.
41. The delay at the instance of the High Court in uploading the
    Judgment after a period of about 2 years 5 months is a matter of
    grave concern. We should not overlook this fact. We have taken
    serious cognizance of this delay at the instance of the High Court.
    It is only keeping this in mind that inspite of dismissal of the special
    leave petition filed by the coconvict-Vikas that we looked into the
    oral evidence threadbare so as to satisfy ourselves whether there
    is any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court or
    the High Court and whether any grave prejudice could be said to
    have been caused to the appellant due to delay.
42. We have reached the conclusion that despite there being a delay of
    2 years 5 months in uploading the Judgment, the oral testimony of
    the two eyewitnesses inspires confidence and there is nothing on
    record in the form of any intrinsic evidence to render their testimony
    doubtful.
43. Over a period of time, it has been the practice of few High Courts
    to pronounce the operative part of the order without the reasoned
    judgment and after a substantial length of time the reasoned judgment
    is uploaded. This practice has been deprecated by this Court in
    many of its judgments and orders. This practice of the High Courts
    deprives the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further
    judicial redressal more particularly in criminal matters wherein the
    appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction
    passed by the trial court. (See: State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev
    Singh Talwandi : (1984) 1 SCC 596, Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and
    Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158, Mangat Ram v.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          759

                      Rajan v. The State of Haryana


     State of Haryana : (2008) 7 SCC 96, Ajay Singh and Anr. v. State of
     Chhattisgarh and Anr. : (2017) 3 SCC 330, Balaji Baliram Mupade
     and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : (2021) 12 SCC 603,
     Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. :
     2024 INSC 801, K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao
     Patil and Ors. : 2022 INSC 1025)
44. Almost two decades back, this Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar
    reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318 had taken serious cognizance of the
    aforesaid. This Court issued guidelines as contained in paras 9 and
    10 respectively of the judgment which read as under:
           “9. It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for
           pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under
           the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code,
           but as the pronouncement of the judgment is a part of the
           justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay. In
           a country like ours where people consider the Judges only
           second to God, efforts be made to strengthen that belief of
           the common man. Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates
           the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely which,
           if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in
           the judicial system. A time has come when the judiciary
           itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and
           regards for the attainment of the rule of law. For the fault
           of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary
           cannot be permitted to be made ugly. It is the policy and
           purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which efforts
           are required to be made to come up to the expectation of
           the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted
           justice.
           10. Under the prevalent circumstances in some of the High
           Courts, I feel it appropriate to provide some guidelines
           regarding the pronouncement of judgments which, I am
           sure, shall be followed by all concerned, being the mandate
           of this Court. Such guidelines, as for the present, are as
           under:
           (i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue
           appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where
           the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column
760                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after
          the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date
          of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the Court
          Officer concerned.
          (ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their
          administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/
          Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to
          furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where
          the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the
          period of that month.
          (iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the
          judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months,
          the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the
          Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice
          may also see the desirability of circulating the statement
          of such cases in which the judgments have not been
          pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of
          conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the
          High Court for their information. Such communication be
          conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
          (iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three
          months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties
          in the case is permitted to file an application in the High
          Court with a prayer for early judgment. Such application, as
          and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned
          within two days excluding the intervening holidays.
          (v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced
          within a period of six months, any of the parties of the
          said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the
          Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw
          the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for
          fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant
          the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems
          fit in the circumstances.”
45. In the case in hand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
    placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Santosh
    Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs. reported in (2001) 3
    SCC 179 and few other orders to fortify her submission that the delay
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           761

                      Rajan v. The State of Haryana


     in uploading the reasoned order by itself should be a ground to set
     aside the same. It would be too much for this Court to say that the
     delay by itself is sufficient to set aside the impugned judgment. It
     would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
     This Court in Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of UP and Ors. reported
     in 2025 INSC 1039 has issued appropriate directions to tackle this
     problem. We quote the directions issued by this Court:
           “10. It is not that the situation with which we are dealing
           in these Appeals has arisen for consideration for the first
           time. The directions have already been issued by this
           Court in Anil Rai (supra). Therefore, what is required today
           is of adherence to the principles laid down by this Court
           in Anil Rai (supra). We reiterate the directions and direct
           the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the
           Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the
           judgment reserved is not pronounced within the remaining
           period of that month and keep on repeating the same for
           three months. If the judgment is not delivered within three
           months, the Registrar General shall place the matters
           before the Chief Justice for orders and the Chief Justice
           shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for
           pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing
           which the matter be assigned to another Bench.
           11. The above direction is in addition to the guidelines/
           directions issued by this Court in Anil Rai (supra).”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

46. We may refer to a passage from State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh
    Talwandi reported in (1984) 1 SCC 596, wherein expressing the
    opinion for the Constitution Bench, Chandrachud, C.J. observed
    thus:—
           “30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out
           that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice
           increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the
           final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that
           the final order which the High Court intends to pass should
           not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for
           pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order
762                                                          [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High
          Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody
          of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against
          the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is
          acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the
          instant case, that a detenu be released from detention.
          If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy
          compliance with them, that object is more often defeated
          by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this
          Court against the order passed by the High Court. That
          places this Court in a predicament because, without the
          benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for
          this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The
          result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed
          by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of
          the reasoned Judgment. It may be thought that such
          orders are passed by this Court and therefore there is no
          reason why the High Courts should not do the same. We
          would like to point out respectfully that the orders passed
          by this Court are final and no appeal lies against them.
          The Supreme Court is the final Court in the hierarchy of
          our courts. Besides, orders without a reasoned judgment
          are passed by this Court very rarely, under exceptional
          circumstances. Orders passed by the High Court are
          subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under
          Article 136 of the Constitution and other provisions of the
          concerned statutes. We thought it necessary to make
          these observations in order that a practice which is not
          very desirable and which achieves no useful purpose may
          not grow out of its present infancy.”
47. In K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Patil C.A No. 6972/2022 decided
    on 26.09.2022, this Court after considering Anil Rai (supra), held that
    a party to litigation could not be expected to wait indefinitely for the
    availability of reasons of the Order of the Court. The guidelines and
    observations in Anil Rai (supra), remain fundamental to the course
    of dispensation of justice in any case before the Court, and the
    principle set out therein must be followed. This Court was concerned
    with an issue where an order was pronounced but even after more
    than three months, reasons were not forthcoming, and the Judgment
    was not available to either of the parties.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                       763

                         Rajan v. The State of Haryana


48. We hope that we may not have to come across any matter wherein
    there is a delay at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned
    order more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is
    pronounced. Today all that we are doing is reiterating the directions
    issued by this Court in Anil Rai (supra).
49. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
50. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
51. Registry is directed to forward one copy each of this judgment to
    all the High Courts.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain