Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Kirpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2009
Decided On : 18-04-2024
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 302 and 307 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Murder and attempt to murder – Conviction and sentence – Acquittal of co-accused – Other than bald averment made by first informant attributing motive for incident to accused, no corroborative material was collected by Investigating Officers to lend credence to theory of motive – Once accused had achieved objective of eliminating deceased without being discovered, they had all opportunity in the world to escape from spot by using very same ladder – There was no reason for accused to risk discovery by coming down and alarming family members – Inherent improbabilities and loopholes in evidence of PWs completely destroy fabric of prosecution case which is full of holes and holes which are impossible to be stitched together – No other tangible evidence was led by prosecution to connect accused appellant with crime – Prosecution’s story of motive is very weak and rather far fetched so as to place implicit reliance thereupon – Two investigating officers conducted thorough investigation and found entire case set up by first informant to be false – No weapon of crime was recovered at instance of accused appellant – There is no corroborative evidence so as to lend credence to wavering and unreliable testimony of PWs – Appellant acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt – Judgments of trial Court and High Court hereby quashed and set aside. (Paras 16, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appeal preferred by appellant was dismissed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide impugned Judgment.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted of charges. Sentence awarded to appellant was directed to be suspended by this Court on 12th August, 2011, during pendency of this appeal and he is on bail. He need not surrender and bail bonds are discharged.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant for assailing the judgment dated 28th February, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 662-DB of 2003, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 26th July, 2003 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Hoshiarpur, vide which the appellant was convicted and sentenced as below:
(ii) Under Section 307 IPC - Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts:
2. Sharan Kaur, the first informant (PW-5), wife of Balwinder Singh (deceased) used to reside along with her family members in the house which was situated on the backside of the grocery and halwai shops owned by her husband Balwinder Singh (deceased) at bus stop, Khudda. In the intervening night of 12th/13th November, 1997, Balwinder Singh (deceased) went to sleep in chaubara of the house which was not having any shutter, whereas Sharan Kaur (PW-5) along with the other family members slept in a room on the ground floor. It is alleged that Sharan Kaur (PW-5) heard a knock on the door of the room in which she was sleeping at about 2.30 a.m. She thought that it was her husband who had knocked the door and thus she opened the door. In the illumination of light placed in the courtyard, she saw the accused appellant-Kirpal Singh standing there armed with a knife like chura. The appellant inflicted an injury with the weapon on the abdomen of Sharan Kaur (PW-5). Another assailant who was accompanying appellant Kirpal Singh caught hold of her arm. She raised an alarm shouting ‘killed killed’ (‘maar ditta maar ditta’) on which her sons Goldy and Sonu woke up. None of these three persons could identify the other assailant. Both the assailants fled away by opening the main gate, in between the two shops. Sharan Kaur (PW-5) went upstairs to have a look at her husband and found him lying severely injured on the cot with blood oozing out of his mouth and head. Blood pooled on the ground below. He was unable to speak. She called her two sons and sent them to call her brother-in-law Gurnam Singh with a vehicle. Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Balwinder Singh were taken to the Civil Hospital, Tanda but on the way to the hospital, Balwinder Singh expired. First aid was provided to Sharan Kaur (PW-5), thereafter, she as well as the dead body of Balwinder Singh (deceased) was brought back to their home in the same vehicle and by that time the police had arrived. The prosecution alleges that the motive behind the occurrence was that the appellant and his associate were bearing jealousy on account of the roaring business being done at the halwai shop of Balwinder Singh (deceased), which was doing much better as compared to the halwai shop run by the accused appellant. Swaran Dass (PW-9), SHO, Police Station Dasuya recorded the statement of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) wherein, the above allegations were incorporated and based thereupon, FIR No. 126 of 1997 dated 13th November, 1997 came to be registered at Police Station, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. The said FIR was marked as Exhibit-PG/2, during the course of trial. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report on the dead body of Balwinder Singh (deceased) and forwarded the dead body to the Civil Hospital, Dasuya for post mortem examination; rough site plan of the crime scene was prepared; bloodstained earth was collected from the
The need for legal, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence to convict an accused, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in serious offences.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and contradictions and doubts in the evidence can lead to the f....
Extra-judicial confession by its very nature is a weak piece of evidence – It may be used as a corroborative piece of evidence in tandem with substantive evidence.
The conviction of the appellant was overturned due to insufficient evidence, with reliance on the testimony of an incompetent child witness and failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and consistent evidence to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt in cases of abetment to suicide.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of thoroughly analyzing witness testimonies, considering contradictions, and ensuring strict compliance with the law in using police statements for contradictio....
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be reliable and corroborated; mere reliance on the last seen theory is insufficient for conviction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
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
