Introduction 

• This case infers that the rule of prudence to be followed by courts while examining cases having no sufficient evidence to prove the crime. 

Facts 

• In this case the petitioner went to field of the victims to stop the flow of the water and when interrupted by the field owners he hid them with the armed he was carrying with himself which led to death of one of the victims and several injuries to other accused's. 
• The police investigated the case and produced a charge sheet against seven accused. 
• The accused pleaded not guilty against all the charges levied on them. 
• One of the accused contented that he hit the victims in self-defense and stated that the other accused's and the appellant were not present there at the time of incidence. 
• It was also contented by the accused’s that the witnesses have close relation with the victims and therefore the judgement cannot be made relying on their testimonies. 
• The Trial Court, after examining witnesses and evidence, held the accused's guilty under Sections 148, Section 302, Section 323 and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).  
• The accused's appealed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court where the court held the four accused’s guilty and acquitted the other three accused’s. 
• Out of all the convicts only the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Issue Involved  

• Whether the incident took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution or the defense? 

Observations 

• The Supreme Court observed that the conclusion drawn by the investigation officer under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is drawn based on materials collected. 
• The Trial Court should take under Section 190 (1)(b) of CrPC and proceed with the case for trial, where the material collected is to be taken as evidence. 
• The Supreme Court also held that when the evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt the prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and applied the Rule of Prudence. 
• It is also noted by the Supreme Court that the credibility of a witness cannot be questioned just because of him having close relation with the victim unless contrary appears. 

Conclusion 

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to contradict the allegations of the prosecution.