Important point
Where the factum of extra judicial confession itself was in doubt in absence of any other circumstances pointing out guilt, conviction on basis of extra judicial confession could not be justified.

Judgment

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated December 10, 1996 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 281 DB/94 whereby it upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 120B/302 I.P.C. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are as under :

2. In the morning of June 28, 1992 one Harvinder Singh (since dead), who was a resident of village Sidhupur, within the jurisdiction of Lohian Police Station, found Vijay Pal, a doctor attached to Veteri­nary Hospital of Giddar Pindi, lying dead near his field with multiple bleeding injuries on his person. He then rushed to the police station and lodged a report. On receipt thereof S.H.O. Amrik Singh (PW 10) took up investigation and went to the spot. He held inquest upon the dead body of Dr. Vijay Pal and sent it for post-mortem examination to the local hospital. Dr. V.K. Khullar (P.W. 1) held the examination and found twenty seven incised injuries on the person of the deceased. It is alleged that 5/6 days after the murder, the appellant, his two brothers Varinder Kumar and Narinder Kumar, and one Sukhbinder Singh @ Sukha met Shangara Singh (PW 6), who was the Chairman of the Market Committee of Lohian, and confessed that they had committed the murder. After making the confession they requested him to produce them before the police as they were harassing their family. P.W. 6 asked them to contact him after a day or two but as they did not come he reported to the police what he had heard from them. During the pendency of the investigation Narinder Kumar and Sukhbinder Singh died and, hence, on completion of investigation, P.W. 10 submitted charge sheet against the appellant and his brother Varinder Kumar for committing the murder of Dr. Vijay Pal pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by all four of them.

3. The alleged motive for the murder was that a few days before the incident the appellant, who was earlier the Veterinary doctor of Giddar Pindi, was served with an order of transfer and the deceased was to replace him. Since the appellant was reluctant to leave Giddar Pindi, he locked the gate of the hospital so that the deceased could not take over charge. Finding the hospital locked, the deceased joined his duties by affix­ing a slip on its outer gate and made a representa­tion to his senior officers about his predicament. A Committee of three doctors was then constituted and sent to ensure that the charge of the hospital was handed over to the deceased. Under orders of the Committee the appellant handed over charge to the deceased on June 27, 1992. At that time the appellant and his brother Varinder Kumar threatened the deceased with dire consequences.

4. The accused persons denied the accusation levelled against them and contended that they were falsely implicated in the case at the in­stance of P.W. 6 and the Police. They asserted that they did not make any confession before P.W. 6. Indeed, according to them, they were arrested by the police on June 28, 1992 and were in their custody on the date the confession was allegedly made. The further plea of the appellant was that his transfer and that of the deceased were on request and hence the question of his bearing any grudge against the deceased did not and could not arise. In support of their res­pective cases the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and the defence exam­ined three.

5. In absence of any eye witness to the murder the prosecution rested its case upon the evidence adduced relating to the extra-judicial confession made by the four accused persons and the motive. Accepting that evidence the trial Court convicted the appellant and his brother and the High Court dismissed the appeal of the former, while allowing that of the latter.

6. Having carefully gone through the entire evidence on record, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has been able to conclusively prove the charge levelled against the appellant. Coming first to the extra-judicial confession