Back
2011 (7) Supreme 396
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ
Prithipal Singh Etc. — Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Anr. Etc. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 523-527 of 2009
with
Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2009
Decided on : 4-11-2011
(b) Indian Evidence Act, Section 8 ¯ Subsequent conduct of accused ¯ The conduct of accused subsequent to the commission of crime may be very relevant ¯ If there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused fabricated some evidence to screen/absolve himself from the offence, such circumstance may point towards his guilt. (Para 43)
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 11 ¯ Alibi ¯ Where the plea of alibi taken by the accused is found false, it points towards the guilt of the accused. (Para 47)
(d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 106 ¯ Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ¯ But the Section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference ¯ Section 106 of the Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases, in which, it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. (Para 29)
(e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 114, Illustration (b) and Section 133 ¯ The deposition of an accomplice in a crime who has not been made an accused/put to trial, can be relied upon, however, the evidence is required to be considered with care and caution ¯ An accomplice who has not been put on trial is a competent witness as he deposes in the court after taking oath and there is no prohibition in any law not to act upon his deposition without corroboration. (Para 21)
(f) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 134 ¯ As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable ¯ There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness ¯ That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act ¯ But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration ¯ In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material ¯ The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. (Para 26)
(g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 ¯ Section 302 ¯ Corpus Delicti ¯ Recovery of ¯ In a murder case, it is not necessary that the dead body of the victim should be found and identified, i.e. conviction for offence of murder does not necessarily depend upon corpus delicti being found ¯ The corpus delicti in a murder case has two components - death as result, and criminal agency of another as the means ¯ Where there is a direct proof of one, the other may be established by circumstantial evidence. (Para 28)
(h) Cr. P.C. 1973 ¯ Section 386(e) ¯ Enhancement of sentence suo motu ¯ The High Court in exercise of its power under Section 386(e) Cr. P.C. is competent to enhance the sentence suo motu - However, such a course is permissible only after giving opportunity of hearing to the accused. (Para 17)
Facts of the case
According to the prosecution, the deceased was a human rights activist and had been General Secretary, Human Rights Wing of Shiromani Akali Dal. He had been working on abduction and cremation of unclaimed/unidentified bodies during the disturbed period in Punjab, particularly in districts Amritsar and Taran Taran. The police had been eliminating the young persons under the pretext of being militants and was disposing of their dead bodies without maintaining any record and without performing their last rites. The deceased raised the voice against the same. The local police did not like it and as such the accused appellants hatched a conspiracy to abduct him and in furtherance of that criminal conspiracy, he was abducted by the local police officials on 6.9.1995 about 9.00 a.m. from his residence and after keeping him in the illegal detention, killed him and threw his body into a canal in Harike area. The dead body of the deceased could not be recovered.
Findings
The Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the High Court. The facts of the case do not warrant review of the findings recorded by the courts below. Conviction proper.
State's Obligation to Protect Life: The State has an overriding obligation to protect the right to life of every person within its jurisdiction, requiring administrative and other measures to safeguard life and investigate suspicious deaths. (!) (!) (!)
Realistic Approach in Custodial Crimes: Courts must adopt a realistic rather than narrow technical approach in custodial crime cases, recognizing the difficulty in securing evidence against police personnel due to their brotherhood and tendency to pervert truth. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
No Requirement for Dead Body Recovery in Murder Conviction: Recovery of the victim's dead body is not a condition precedent for convicting an accused of murder; corpus delicti (death and criminal agency) can be proved by circumstantial evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Police Atrocities Violate Constitutional Rights: Police atrocities contravene Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, ensuring protection of life, liberty, and safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention; tolerance erodes the rule of law. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Evidence of Accomplice Not on Trial: Testimony of an accomplice not prosecuted or put on trial is admissible and can support conviction if credible, though it must be scrutinized with care and caution; corroboration in material particulars strengthens reliability. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Sole Testimony Sufficient if Reliable: Conviction can rest on a single witness's testimony if wholly reliable; quality over quantity of evidence matters, weighing credibility rather than counting witnesses. (!) (!)
Section 106 Evidence Act - Burden Shift: Applies when prosecution proves facts allowing reasonable inference of other facts within accused's special knowledge; accused must explain, but does not relieve prosecution's overall burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!)
False Alibi Indicates Guilt: A disproved plea of alibi points to the accused's guilt. (!) (!) (!)
Subsequent Conduct Relevant: Accused's post-crime conduct, such as fabricating evidence to screen guilt, is relevant and points to culpability. (!) (!)
High Court Power to Enhance Sentence: Under Section 386(e) Cr.P.C., High Court can suo motu enhance sentence after hearing the accused, even without State appeal. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Abduction Shifts Burden: Once abduction by accused is proved, burden shifts to them to explain the victim's fate. (!)
Offences Convicted: Police officials convicted under IPC Sections 302/34 (murder), 364/34 (kidnapping to murder), 201/34 (disposal of evidence), and 120B (conspiracy); sentences included life imprisonment. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Victim's Role and Motive: Victim was a human rights activist exposing police fake encounters and secret cremations; police conspired to abduct, torture, murder, and dispose of body in canal due to enmity. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Key Witnesses Reliable Despite Delays/Threats: Identification by wife (PW.2), eyewitnesses (PW.7, PW.15), detainees (PW.14), and insider (PW.16); threats, false cases against witnesses explained delays/improvements; testimonies corroborated chain of events. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Investigation Context: Local police inaction led to Supreme Court transfer to CBI; monitoring ensured progress despite obstructions; no body recovered due to time lapse. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Outcome: Concurrent convictions upheld; no interference warranted given ground realities of custodial death and evidence quality. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. All the above appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 864-DB of 2005, 2062-SB of 2005, 2073-SB of 2005, 2074-SB of 2005, 2075-SB of 2005 and order dated 16.10.2007 in Crl. R.P. No. 323 of 2006, whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeals of the appellants filed against the conviction and sentences awarded to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in Sessions Case No. 49-T of 9.5.1998/30.11.2001 vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2005, whereby he had convicted Jaspal Singh, DSP - appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2009 and one Amarjit Singh, ASI, under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’), and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter called ‘RI’) for five months. Both were also convicted under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. They were further convicted under Sections 364/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for five months. They were also convicted under Sections 201/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.
Prithipal Singh, Satnam Singh, Surinderpal Singh and Jasbir Singh, appellants, were convicted under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months. These four accused/appellants were also convicted under Sections 364/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo for seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for five months.
The High Court while dismissing the Criminal Appeals filed by appellants, allowed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 323 of 2006 filed by Smt. Paramjit Kaur (PW.2), wife of the deceased, vide order dated 16.10.2007 and enhanced the sentence of the four appellants from seven years RI to imprisonment for life under Section 364 IPC.
2. FACTS:
A. Shri Jaswant Singh Khalra, a human right activist, having allegiance to Shiromani Akali Dal, was alleged to have been abducted from his residential house No. 8, Kabir Park, Amritsar, on 6.9.1995 at 1.00 O’Clock. Shri Rajiv Singh (PW.15) was present in the house of Shri Khalra at the time of abduction, Kirpal Singh Randhawa (PW.7) had seen appellants, namely, Jaspal Singh, DSP, Surinderpal Singh, Jasbir Singh and Satnam Singh alongwith other accused persons rushing through Kabir Park with the deceased Jaswant Singh Khalra inside a Maruti van.
B. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (PW.2) wife of the deceased, came to her house from the University, where she was working, on being informed by Rajiv Singh (PW.15). She made a search for her husband but in vain. She made a complaint on the same day at 4.00 PM making a statement to SI Baldev Singh at Kabir Park that her husband had been kidnapped at 1.00 O’Clock by some persons in police uniform in Maruti van of white colour bearing No. DNB-5969. On the basis of the said statement, an FIR No. 72 (Ex.PA) was registered on 7.9.1995 at P.S. Islamabad, District Amritsar, at 9.30 AM under Section 365 IPC. However, no progress in investigation could be made and whereabouts of Jaswant Singh Khalra could not be known.
C. Smt. Paramjit Kaur (PW.2), wife of the deceased, filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 497 of 1995 before this Court, wherein this Court vide order dated 5.11.1995 transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred as ‘CBI’). The CBI registere
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
