Back
2000(3) Supreme 458
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
K.T. Thomas, Doraiswamy Raju & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Kuldeep Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Rajasthan -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 1998
Decided on 25-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : P.R. Aggarwal, Pramod Dayal, Piyush Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Sushil Kr. Jain, A. Misra and Ms. Anjali Doshi, Advocates.
Held : The evidence of PW 1 (Jaswinder Kaur), PW 2 (Smt. Karnal Kaur) and PW 3 (Dalbir Singh) establish that Appellant No. 1 was for some time a tenant of Mohan Singh. This evidence establishes that Mohan Singh was for some years prior to his death suffering from paralysis. It establishes that there was an illicit relationship between Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 4. This evidence along with the evidence of PW 8 (Gyanendra Singh) also establish that Sohan Singh was objecting to the illicit relationship between Appellants No. 1 and 4. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 8 establishes that Appellant No. 4 had also threatened Mrs. Karnal Kaur that she would see that she also became a widow. The evidence also establishes that Appellant No. 4 got all other family members to attend the Ramleela function and had tried to keep back the son of Sohan Singh in the house along with Sohan Singh, but could not succeed in keeping the son at home. This evidence also establishes that Appellant No. 4 had left the Ramleela function and that when she was asked by Karnal Kaur and others as to where she had gone, she stated that she was not feeling well and had merely sat in the open some distance away. Further the evidence of PW 9 (Buta Singh) establishes that Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were seen by him going towards the house of Sohan Singh at approximately 9 P.M. on the same night. Both the Courts below have correctly held that the above evidence coupled with the recoveries establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant No. 1 was (a) for sometime a tenant of Mohan Singh; (b) that there had been illicit relationship between him and Appellant No. 4 (c) that Appellants 2 and 3 used to visit the house of Mohan Singh when Appellant No. 1 was a tenant in that house. (d) that Sohan Singh had objected to the illicit relationship between Appellant Nos. 1 and 4 (e) that Appellant No. 4 wanted to sell off her portion of the house and Sohan Singh was objecting to it (f) that there was motive for the murder (g) that Appellant No. 4 had threatened Karnal Kaul that she would see that she too became a widow (h) that Appellant No. 4 got all family members to attend Ramleela programme, thereby leaving Sohan Singh alone in the house (i) that Appellant No. 4 tried to get son of Sohan Singh also to stay back but could not succeed in doing so (j) that Appellant No. 4 left the Ramleela programme (k) that Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were seen going towards the house of Sohan Singh, round about 9 p.m. on the night of the murder (l) that on returning home, from the Ramleela programme Appellant No. 4 bolted the door of her room which allowed entry from outside and (m) Appellant No. 4 calling the daughters of Sohan Singh not to tell anybody about enmity or to name anybody. This has to be coupled with the fact that there had been recovery of a blood stained Darat and pant at the instance of Appellant No. 1 and a blood stained Darat at the instance of Appellant No. 2. There is no explanation from Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 why the blood stained Darats were so hidden by them or how they could help discover the same. All these circumstances put together unerringly lead to the conclusion that Appellants 1, 2 and 4 had conspired to murder and murdered Sohan Singh between the night of 15th and 16th October, 1977. The false answer given by Appellant No. 4 denying that she had left the Ramleela programme provides the additional like or a missing link in completing the chain of circumstances. It is established beyond a reasonable doubt that Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had entered into a conspiracy and had murdered Sohan Singh. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 19 and 20)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 r/w 120B-Murder-Conviction on basis of circumstantial evidence-Allegation that A-3 along with other convicted accused persons conspired and killed deceased-Only evidence again A-3 was that PW 9 had seen him going along with A-1 and A-2 towards house of deceased-Other evidence of PW 5-Contradictory statement of PW 5 to police-Contradiction substantial-Evidence of PW 5 cannot be relied upon-No circumstance or proof which links A-3 to conspiracy or murder-Conviction set aside. (Para 5)
JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.-This Appeal is against the judgment dated 10th March, 1997. By the judgment the Appeal of the Appellants against their convictions by the Additional Sessions Judge has been confirmed. Appellants 1 and 2 had been convicted under Sections 302 and 120B IPC Appellants 3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC. All of them are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :
One Sohan Singh and his brother Mohan Singh were staying in different portion of house at Ward No. 35, Old Abadi, Ganganagar. Both of them had practiced as Vaids and were running a medical shop. Sohan Singh has married to one Karnal Kaur. He has two daughters and one son. Mohan Singh was married to Surjeet Kaur i.e. Appellant No. 4. They have three daughers. Mohan Singh expired sometime in 1974. Thereafter, Sohan Singh and his family and Appellant No. 4 and her children continued to stay in the portions of the same house occupied by them earlier. Sohan Singh was found murdered in his own house, in the night intervening 15th and 16th of October 1977.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 1, Kuldeep Singh was earlier a tenant of Mohan Singh. Appellant No. 2, Mahindra Singh is a maternal uncle of Appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 3, Uttam Chand is a friend a Appellant No. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 1 developed illicit relationship with Appellant No. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 used to visit the house of Appellant No. 4 when Appellant No. 1 was a tenant there. It is the case of the prosecution that Sohan Singh was objecting to the illicit relationship between Appellant No. 1 and Appellant No. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that Sohan Singh was also objecting to Appellant No. 4 wanting to sell off her portion of the house. It was the case of the prosecution that all the four Appellants conspired to cause the death of Sohan Singh and in pursuance of the said conspiracy Appellants 1 and 2 murdered Sohan Singh. It is this case of the prosecution that in pursuance of the said conspiracy Appellant No. 4 got all the family members, including the wife of Sohan Singh, to attend Ramleela which was being played in the village. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 4 tried to persuade the son of Sohan Singh also to stay back at home but could not succeed in doing so as the son insisted on attending the Ramleela programme. It is the case of the prosecution that Appellant No. 4 accompanied the other family members to the Ramleela festival, but thereafter went away from the Ramleela grounds for some time. It is the case of the prosecution that when Karnail Kaur and other family members asked Appellant No. 4 where she had gone, she stated that as she was not feeling well so she had sat in the open away from the crowd.
4. Karnal Kaur and other family members came home at about 1 A.M. On coming home they found that Sohan Singh was lying in pool of blood. It is the case of the prosecution that on coming home Appellant No. 4 immediately went to her room and bolted the outside door, which allowed entry to her room from outside. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter Appellant No. 4 called Jaswinder Kaur and Dalbir Kaur, the daughters of Sohan Singh to her room and told them not to say that they had any enemy or to name any person as otherwise there would be trouble.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that on seeing Sohan Singh there was a outcry by the family members which attracted the neighbours including one Harnek Singh, Advocate. The said Harnek Singh, then called the police. The police reached the house of Sohan Singh and recorded the statement of Jaswinder Kaur, the daughter of the deceased. They then inspected the site, held an inquest, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused.
6. Charges under Sections 120B and 302 IPC were framed against all the four accused, who
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
