Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1385
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, JJ.
Bhag Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1485 of 2009
Decided On : 03-08-2017
For the Appellants : Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR [N/P].
For the Respondent:Ms. Mandakani Singh, Mrs. Jaspreet Gogia, Mr. Kuldip Singh, AOR, Mr. Raj Kamal and Mr./Ms. Gursimran Dhillon, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that circumstantial evidence must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction under IPC - Sections 302, 364, 201, 148 read with Section 149 - The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
Five accused were convicted for various offences under the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment. Two of the accused withdrew their appeals, leaving three accused to appeal to the Supreme Court. The accused were unrepresented before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution's evidence, including circumstantial evidence, did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prosecution's evidence, including last seen together, recovery of the dead body and weapons, extra-judicial confession, and motive, was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the remaining three accused and directed their immediate release.
ORDER :
Ranjan Gogoi, J.
Five (05) accused, namely, Jaswinder Singh, Karnail Singh, Bhag Singh, Baj Singh and Bagicha Singh were convicted by the learned trial Court for the offences under Sections 302, 364, 201, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302/149 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years under Section 364/149 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years under Section 201 I.P.C.; rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 148/149 IPC. The convictions and sentences have been upheld by the High Court in appeal. Aggrieved this appeal has been lodged by the accused appellants from jail.
2. Two of the accused appellants, namely, Jaswinder Singh and Karnail Singh have withdrawn their appeals leaving the matter to be agitated by the remaining three accused appellants i.e. Bhag Singh, Baj Singh and Bagicha Singh.
3. The accused appellants are unrepresented before this Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the State of Punjab and perused the judgment under challenge and the evidence and materials on record.
4. The conviction of the accused appellants is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The incriminating circumstances which have been proved by the prosecution may be conveniently listed below.
(i) The accused persons were last seen with the deceased Dilbag Singh;
(ii) The disclosure statements made by the accused led to the recovery of the dead body; recovery of the weapons; and recovery of the personal belongings i.e. wrist watch and a ring of the deceased;
(iii) Extra-judicial confession made by the five (05) accused persons to Tarlok Singh (P.W.10);
(iv) Motive of the accused which is sought to be proved by the fact that sister of one of the accused persons was in illicit relation with the deceased.
5. The circumstance of last seen together has been sought to be proved by the evidence of Darshan Singh (P.W.9). Darshan Singh (P.W.9), however, mentioned three (03) names in this regard i.e. Jaswinder Singh, Karnail Singh and Bhag Singh. The first two (02) accused appellants i.e. Jaswinder Singh and Karnail Singh have withdrawn their appeals and even if the evidence of Darshan Singh (P.W.9) is to be taken into account it is clear that the two (02) remaining accused appellants i.e. Baj Singh and Bagicha Singh were not named by Darshan Singh (P.W - 9).
6. Insofar as the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused appellants to Tarlok Singh (P.W.10) is concerned we have perused the evidence of Tarlok Singh (P.W.10) from the records in original. The said witness has testified that two days after the incident the accused appellants came to his house and out of them Jaswinder Singh was taken inside whereupon accused Jaswinder Singh reported to Tarlok Singh (P.W.10) that all the five accused had killed the deceased and thrown his dead body in the water which is called Dhan of the river. Thereafter Tarlok Singh (P.W.10) came out of the house and confronted the other accused persons with the said fact which was accepted and acknowledged by them. The above facts would clearly show that there was no extra judicial confession made by the accused persons to Tarlok Singh (P.W-10).
7. The recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the accused persons suffers from a serious lacuna/infirmity. We have perused the disclosure statements Exhibit P.26 to P.30 made by the accused persons wherefrom it clearly transpires that the statements recorded are identical in content and expression. The said statements, therefore, would hardly be an accurate recording of what was allegedly stated by the accused persons leading to discovery. That apart, five accused persons, one after the other, making the same statement before the Police Officer in identical terms does not inspire the confidence of the Court.
8. Insofar as the recovery of weapons is concerned, from the disclosure statements on record
