PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill and Jasjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Jagtar Singh And Ohers – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-173-DB-2005 (O&M) and CRA-D-498-DB-2006 (O&M)
Decided on : 15-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. murder charges based on fir and circumstantial evidence of missing person. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the police conducted an investigation leading to the recovery and confessions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence presented included witness testimonies and respective claims. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. defense claims that evidence is circumstantial and lacks credibility. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. legal principles governing the admission of circumstantial evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 6. requirement for circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 7. final ruling allows appeal and acquits defendants. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. -
This judgment shall dispose off the above mentioned two appeals filed by appellants Jagtar Singh and Jagdev Singh wherein judgment dated 10.01.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot is being assailed vide which both the appellants had been held guilty of having murdered Jaswinder Singh and have been sentenced as under:-
Section | Sentence |
302/34 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. |
201/34 IPC | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each. |
2. The FIR (Ex.P-33) was lodged on the statement/ruqa (Ex.P-32) of complainant Sonam Rani @ Seema on 15.11.2001 wherein she alleged that she had earlier been married to Rajesh @ Banty who was addicted to intoxicants, but since they could not pull-on together, they started residing separately and with the intervention of the Panchayat, it was settled that each of them would be at liberty to contract second marriage. The complainant stated that subsequently, she solemnized marriage with Jaswinder Singh (deceased). However, her previous husband Rajesh along with Karam Singh and two other persons came to the house of her in-laws and also to the shop of Lakhwinder Singh (elder brother of deceased) and issued threats to kidnap Jaswinder Singh and that they would not be allowed to live peacefully. Although, the complainant and others lodged their protest in this regard through their relatives, but Rajesh again threatened the complainant telephonically. It is alleged that Bittu who is a relative of complainant's earlier husband Rajesh being his 'jija' (brother-in-law) had also threatened her telephonically several times while stating that Jaswinder Singh would be killed and even his dead body would not be ever recovered. Although, the complainant and others again lodged protest through their relatives but to no avail. Complainant alleged that on 23.08.2001, when she along with her husband Jaswinder Singh were going towards Ferozepur, they were followed by Rajesh and his companions. On 13.09.2001, the complainant, as per routine had left home for selling clothes and he had taken moped of complainant's father-in-law, but he did not return though he usually returned home by 2:00 PM. Although, the complainant along with her relatives searched for her husband, but he could not be found. On 15.09.2001, when the complainant alongwith her father-in-law Harbhagwan Singh, her brother-in-law Lakhwinder Singh and Mulkh Raj were going in a jeep from village Buttar towards village Sangrahoor in search of her husband, they saw some persons having gathered near a bridge on water channel. When the complainant and her companions stopped there, they saw a dead body lying at the bridge which was found to be that of complainant's husband. The neck of the dead body had been strangulated with a piece of cloth (parna) and the dead body had been tied in a yellow coloured 'palli' (large piece of cloth). The complainant alleged that her husband had been murdered by Rajesh Kumar, Bittu and their companions.
3. Pursuant to lodging of the FIR, the police reached at the spot and took out the
The court ruled that weak circumstantial evidence and lack of motive cannot support a murder conviction, necessitating a complete chain of proof.
Circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction in murder cases if it forms a complete narrative excluding reasonable doubt.
The judgment underscores that a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of events leading to guilt, with comprehensive corroboration against multiple hypot....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
The evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the charges under Sections 302/201 of IPC, leading to acquittal.
Extra-judicial confessions require corroborative evidence to ensure reliability; circumstantial evidence must present a complete chain connecting the accused to the crime without reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, for conviction; reliance on weak evidence leads to acquittal.
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
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.