Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol & P.S. Rana, JJ.
Simran Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2012
Decided on: January 8, 2015
Accused was convicted of murdering his wife by pushing her off a cliff. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's last seen theory, his conduct after the incident, and the discovery of the victim's body at the instance of the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed that his wife had left him for a long walk and never returned. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused's guilt was established by the chain of circumstances. The court also rejected the accused's argument that the evidence was inadmissible due to violations of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Simran Pal Singh, was married to Simarjit Kaur. On February 22, 2010, the couple checked out of a hotel in Kufri, Himachal Pradesh, and went for a walk. The accused later claimed that his wife left him for a long walk and never returned. The victim's body was found the next day at the bottom of a cliff. The accused was arrested and charged with murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the accused's guilt was established by the chain of circumstances. The court held that the accused's last seen theory was false, that his conduct after the incident was suspicious, and that the discovery of the victim's body at the instance of the accused was a strong piece of evidence against him. The court also rejected the accused's argument that the evidence was inadmissible due to violations of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the accused's guilt was established by the chain of circumstances. 3. Whether the accused's last seen theory was false. 4. Whether the accused's conduct after the incident was suspicious. 5. Whether the discovery of the victim's body at the instance of the accused was a strong piece of evidence against him. 6. Whether the evidence was inadmissible due to violations of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the following circumstances: (i) the accused's last seen theory was false; (ii) the accused's conduct after the incident was suspicious; (iii) the discovery of the victim's body at the instance of the accused was a strong piece of evidence against him. 2. The court held that the accused's last seen theory was false because he had lied about his whereabouts on the day of the incident and because there was no evidence to support his claim that his wife had left him for a long walk. 3. The court held that the accused's conduct after the incident was suspicious because he had failed to report his wife's disappearance to the police, he had lied to his family and friends about her whereabouts, and he had attempted to flee the country. 4. The court held that the discovery of the victim's body at the instance of the accused was a strong piece of evidence against him because it showed that he had knowledge of the crime scene and that he had been involved in the victim's death. 5. The court held that the evidence was admissible despite the accused's argument that it violated Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act because the evidence was relevant to the case and because the accused had not been prejudiced by its admission.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the accused's appeal and upheld his conviction for murder.
Assailing the judgment dated 24.5.2012, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 14-S/7 of 2010, titled as State of H.P. vs. Simran Pal Singh, whereby appellant-accused stands convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in relation to an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 17.1.2010 accused Simran Pal Singh son of Rachpal Singh (PW-5) got married to Simarjit Kaur (deceased) daughter of Harnek Singh (PW-1). The couple decided to visit Shimla for their honeymoon. Accused borrowed a car from his friend Pankaj Sethi (PW-32) at Panchkula (Haryana) and came to Shimla. On 21.2.2010 they checked in at Kufri Holiday Resorts, Kufri, District Shimla (H.P.). During their stay there, they spoke with their respective parents. Last such conversation took place on 22.2.2010. Same day, at 4.00 p.m. accused also spoke with Ranjit Singh (PW-4), brother of the deceased and informed that they were returning to Panchkula from Kufri. He also informed Rachpal Singh about the same. However, on return from Kufri, just before Shimla, accused stopped the car near Hasan Valley and with an intent of murdering, pushed the deceased below the cliff into a deep gorge. Motive being, his suspicion of deceased having illicit relationship with her father-in-law. Thereafter accused came and checked in at hotel Gulmarg Regency in Shimla and the following morning i.e. 23.2.2010 left for Panchkula, where he met his friend Pankaj Sethi and also sought legal opinion from a lawyer. In the night of 22.2.2010 and morning of 23.2.2010, Harnek Singh, without any success, tried to contact his daughter on telephone. On 24.2.2010/ 25.2.2010 accused met his father Rachpal Singh at Panchkula/Mohali (Twin Cities on the periphery of Chandigarh) and misinformed that the deceased had left him at Kufri, as she had desired to take a long walk, since when she was not traceable. On 26.2.2010, Rachpal Singh informed Harnek Singh that both the accused and the deceased were well. All along accused remained in Panchkula. Since Harnek Singh was not able to contact his daughter, on 27.2.2010, he alongwith Rachpal Singh came to Chandigarh to meet the deceased whose whereabouts were still not known to him. Even then accused maintained stoic silence. Since deceased was not traceable, on 28.2.2010 Rachpal Singh lodged missing reports (Ext.PW-5/A and Ex.PW-5/B) at Police Station, Sadar, Ferozepur (Punjab). For investigation, police officials HC-Gurcharan Singh (PW-29), ASI Rakesh Kumar (PW-36) and HC-Jaspal Singh (PW-28) visited Panchkula and questioned the accused. Eventually on 1.3.2010, accused disclosed to ASI Rakesh Kumar that he had killed his wife by pushing her down the cliff somewhere near Kufri, which information was passed on to officials of Police Station Dhalli (H.P.). ASI-Sapinder Singh (PW-39) Police Station, Dhalli, recorded such fact in the roznamcha register (Ext.PW-9/A) and informed his higher authorities. Inspector Balbir Singh (PW-40), S.H.O. Police Station Dhalli, deputed ASI Bhup Singh (PW-38) to take necessary action. Police officials visited Panchkula and in the early hours of morning of 2.3.2010, ASI Bhup Singh (PW-38) brought the accused to Police Station, Dhalli, where Harnek Singh (PW-1) got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. (Ext. PW-1/A), on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 41 of 2010, dated 2.3.2010 (Ext.PW-40/A) was registered against the accused under the provisions of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused, who was arrested, in the presence of Harnek Singh, Atma Singh (PW-2), Ranjit Singh (PW-4) and Ravinder Singh (PW-3) made a disclosure statement (Ex. PW-1/B), under the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that near Kufri, between Green Valley and H
AI
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
