Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sanjay Karol and P.S. Rana, JJ.
Simran Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2012
Decided On : 8.1.2015
Accused convicted of murdering his wife by pushing her off a cliff. Conviction upheld on appeal. Key legal principles discussed include last seen theory, conduct of accused, circumstantial evidence, disclosure statement, recovery of dead body, motive, and admissibility of voice recorded conversation.
Fact of the Case:
Accused and deceased were newly married couple. Accused checked into a hotel in Kufri with deceased on 21.2.2010. On 22.2.2010, accused and deceased had a conversation in their hotel room, which was recorded by accused on his mobile phone. Later that day, accused and deceased went for a walk. Accused pushed deceased off a cliff and killed her. Accused then fled the scene and went to Panchkula, where he met his friend and sought legal advice. Accused's father reported deceased missing on 24.2.2010. Police investigation led to accused's arrest. Accused was charged with murder and convicted by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's conviction. The court found that the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the following evidence: (i) the accused was the last person seen with the deceased; (ii) the accused's conduct after the deceased's disappearance was suspicious; (iii) the accused made a disclosure statement to the police in which he admitted to killing the deceased; (iv) the deceased's body was recovered from the cliff where the accused said he had pushed her; (v) the accused's mobile phone contained a recording of a conversation between the accused and the deceased in which the accused threatened to kill the deceased; and (vi) the accused had a motive to kill the deceased because he suspected her of having an affair with her father-in-law.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the accused's disclosure statement to the police. 3. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the recording of the conversation between the accused and the deceased. 4. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the accused had a motive to kill the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence against the accused was strong and convincing. 2. The trial court did not err in relying on the accused's disclosure statement to the police. The statement was made voluntarily and was corroborated by other evidence. 3. The trial court did not err in relying on the recording of the conversation between the accused and the deceased. The recording was properly authenticated and was relevant to the issue of the accused's motive. 4. The trial court did not err in finding that the accused had a motive to kill the deceased. The evidence showed that the accused suspected the deceased of having an affair with her father-in-law.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the accused's appeal and upheld the trial court's conviction.
Sanjay Karol, J.
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
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
