2006 Supreme(SC) 1239

2006(9) Supreme 725
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Kulwinder Singh - Appellant
versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 675 of 2006
Decided on 5-12-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Yashank Adhyara, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Mahima C. Shroff, Mukesh Kumar and Chirag M. Shroff, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Avneet Toor and Arun K. Sinha, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Evidentiary value of an extra judicial confession must be judged in fact situation in each case and it would depend not only on nature of circumstances but also the time when confession was made and credibility of witness who testified thereto.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appellant A4 with other accused were allegedly hired by accused A1 to A3 to murder deceased as deceased had land dispute with A1 to A3 - Deceased with informant, his sons were returning from their field at about 7.40 a.m. when two persons covering their body with ‘khes’ fired at deceased and deceased fell down having suffered shot - Informant lodged report stating that he could identify assailants accused - A1 to A3 went to PW7 and made extra judicial confession - Appellant with other assailant and A3 also came to PW7 and made confession - PW3 claimed to be witness of occurrence and had named both assailants in his statement given to police - Conviction by trial Court - High Court upheld conviction - Appeal - Names of assailants were found specifically mentioned in site plan prepared on same day on spot and thus it was not a case where appellant and other assailant were falsely implicated - Presence of PW3 on spot was not disputed and deceased had been taken to hospital in his jeep - Statement of PW3 was corroborated by 1st informant PW4 in material particulars - Appellant and other assailant refused to take part in Test Identification Parade - PW7 was Vice President of a Co-operative Society and he had intervened between parties earlier also when deceased was alleged to have assaulted one of the accused - He was independent witness - No reason to differ with trial Court and High Court relying on evidence of PW7 - Conviction was not liable to be interfered with.

       Held : The appellant and the said Baldev Singh might not have been named by the first informant in his First Information Report, but what, however, is clear and explicit in his statement made therein, was that they were the persons who could be identified by the informant. The occurrence took place at 7.45 a.m. In the same night, the investigating officer PW-9 came to the spot and recorded the statement inter alia of PW-3 Gurbax Singh. It is not in dispute that in his statement, he named the appellant and the said Baldev Singh as the persons who had fired on the deceased. Their names specifically found mention in the site plan prepared by the investigating officer on the same day. It is, therefore, not a case where the appellant and the said Baldev Singh could be falsely implicated.(Para 17)

       Extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW-7 must be judged having regard to the entire factual matrix. He was Vice-President of a Cooperative Society. The accused persons were known to him for about four years. The reason for making confession was that when Rajbir Singh had assaulted Nardev Singh as a result whereof his arm was fractured, his intervention was sought for. They had gone to him so that he can exercise his influence over the police. As he asked them to produce the appellant and the said Baldev Singh, they must have been persuaded by the other accused persons to go to him for similar purpose particularly when two of the accused persons, viz., Nirpal Singh and Nardev Singh had already been arrested by that time. All the accused by that time came to know that their involvement in the crime is known to the investigating officer.(Para 26)

       PW-7 is an independent witness. He also stated about the fight between the deceased and Nardev Singh as a result whereof the arm of Nardev Singh was fractured. Thus, the land dispute between the parties had been proved. Fight on an earlier occasion between them had also been proved. Motive of the accused to eliminate Rajbir Singh also cannot be said to be wholly non-existent. Both the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court had relied on the statement of PW7. We do not find any reason why to differ therewith.(Paras 28 to 30)

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 24 - Extra Judicial Confession - Evidentiary value must be judged in fact situation in each case.

       Held : The evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession must be judged in the fact situation obtaining in each case. It would depend not only on the nature of the circumstances but also the time when the confession had been made and the credibility of the witness who testifies thereto.(Para 31)