SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Pritinder Singh @ Lovely - Appellants
VERSUS
The State of Punjab – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1635 of 2010 With Criminal Appeal No. 1714 of 2010
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder of step-son – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – There must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability act must have been done by accused – However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt – It cannot be said that extra-judicial confession is one which could be found to be credible – Courts below have erred in relying on extra-judicial confession – Conviction on basis of such evidence cannot be sustained – In view of serious doubt with regard to credibility of witnesses on issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect in prosecution case – Prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, accused are entitled to benefit of doubt – Impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside. (Paras 7, 8, 13, 22, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge the judgment and order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dated 4th February 2010, in Criminal Appeal No. 430-DB of 2001, upholding conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused – appellants herein by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 4th February 2010 and the judgment of Trial Court dated 10th July 2001 are quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. These appeals challenge the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, dated 4th February 2010, in Criminal Appeal No. 430-DB of 2001, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused – appellants herein by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”), for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
2.1 One Harbhajan Singh, a resident of Naga Mahantanwala Dera, had solemnized two marriages, the first with one Sukhwinder Kaur and the second with the accused Manjit Kaur. His first wife bore him four children, complainant Tapinder Singh, deceased Ravinder Singh, and two daughters, both of whom are married. His second wife also bore him two children, namely Navdeep Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur.
2.2 Harbhajan Singh, according to the complainant, had a strained relationship with his first wife. The complainant Tapinder Singh had migrated to the United States of America in the year 1990, and his mother Sukhwinder Kaur had also followed him in the year 1994. It is pertinent to note that his brother Ravinder Singh remained in India, residing in village Jawadi close to Naga Mahantanwala Dera, where his father Harbhajan Singh was residing with his step mother, accused Manjit Kaur.
2.3 A year and a half prior to the occurrence of the incident, Tapinder Singh had returned to the village. It is alleged by him that two days prior to the date of the incident, i.e. on 1st September 1998, a dispute arose between Ravinder Singh and Manjit Kaur, on account of her allegedly deficient moral character. Ravinder Singh had beaten Manjit Kaur during this incident, whereafter Manjit Kaur had allegedly threatened Ravinder Singh that he would not survive.
2.4 Two days later, i.e. on 3rd September 1998, accused Manjit Kaur along with one Pritinder Singh, alias Lovely, accused - appellant herein, came in a car bearing Registration No. HR 21 7778 and took Ravinder Singh in the said car on the pretext of purchasing shoes. Pertinently, Tapinder Singh was also present in the house at this time and allegedly noticed that accused Manjit Kaur was carrying her 12 bore double barrel licensed gun in the car.
2.5 When the deceased Ravinder Singh did not return that evening, suspicion arose in the mind of Tapinder Singh and on the very next day, he along with one Gurdeep Singh, son of Gurmit Singh, went to Naga Mahantanwala Dera in search of the deceased. The Mahant of the Dera told them that the three individuals, i.e. two accused and the deceased, had come in a car the previous night at around 9:30 PM. While both the appellants had their meals, Ravinder did not. The Mahant also informed Tapinder Singh that Ravinder Singh and Manjit Kaur were arguing with each other and, while leaving, had mentioned that they were going to the house of one Surjit Singh, resident of village Kotha Guru, in their car.
2.6 Thereafter, Tapinder Singh set out for Surjit Singh’s house and reached the bridge of the minor canal on the way to Kotha Guru at about 8:30 AM, where they found the dead body of the deceased Ravinder Singh, lying on the pavement of the canal. The body bore two gunshot wounds. The car in which the appellants and the deceased were travelling was also standing there, with the aforementioned gun kept inside, along with the cartridges. On the same day at around 10:15 AM, a complaint was filed on the basis of which an FIR was registered at 11:00 AM and an inquest report was prepared. A special report was subsequently received by the Magistrate on the same day at 2:15 PM. On the very same day, both the accused-appellants herein were apprehended and arrested and subjected to medical examination by the Medical Officer of Primary Health Center Bhagta Bhai Ke at 8:45 PM.
2.7 The postmortem report stated the cause of death to be shock, haemorrhage and injury to v
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab
Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh
However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence or suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.