PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Gurvinder Singh Gill and Jasjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Gurpal Singh And Another – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-190-DB-2005 (O&M) and CRR-2260-2007 (O&M)
Decided on : 15-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to conviction based on appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments challenging the reliability of circumstantial evidence. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 3. court's scrutiny of circumstantial evidence supporting conviction. (Para 24 , 30 , 34) |
| 4. legal standards for circumstantial evidence. (Para 35) |
| 5. outcome of appeal and revision petition. (Para 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
This judgment shall dispose off the above mentioned appeal filed by appellants Gurpal Singh and Malkiat Singh @ Lambu challenging their conviction and also a revision petition filed by Jora Singh (father of deceased Mohinder Singh) who seeks enhancement of sentence. Vide judgment dated 02.02.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the appellants Gurpal Singh and Malkiat Singh @ Lambu have been held guilty and sentenced as under:-
Section | Sentence |
302 IPC for committing the murder of Mohinder Singh | Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months |
302 for committing the murder of D.C.Singh | Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months |
2. Since the proceedings qua appellant No.1-Gurpal Singh already stand abated, the appeal survives qua appellant No.2-Malkiat Singh only.
3. The matter relates to death of two persons namely Mohinder Singh and D.C. Singh, in respect of which FIR No.49, dated 25.05.2002, was lodged at Police Station Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, under Sections 302 and 460 IPC (Ex.PJ/2) on the statement (Ex.PJ) of complainant Pirthi Singh, wherein it is alleged that he was employed as a tractor driver with Narinder Singh. It is alleged that Mohinder Singh (deceased No.1) was serving as a cook whereas D.C. Singh (deceased No.2) was looking after cattle of Narinder Singh. About 7/8 days earlier Narinder Singh had gone to Delhi and that on the previous night (24.5.2002) at about 7:30 PM, he went home after winding up his work. Mohinder Singh and D.C.Singh were sleeping outside for the purpose of security of the house. Next morning at about 7:00 AM, when he went to the house of Narinder Singh, he saw that Mohinder Singh and D.C.Singh had been tied to cots with the help of 'parna' (piece of cloth) and they were having injuries on their heads. Complainant stated that it appeared that the said two had been strangulated to death with 'parna' and had also been inflicted injuries during the night intervening 24/25.02.2002 by some unknown persons.
4. Pursuant to lodging of the FIR, the Investigating Officer SI Mukhtiar Singh (PW-13) along with other police officials went to the spot. Inquest proceedings were conducted in respect of both the dead bodies namely Mohinder Singh and D.C.Singh vide memo Ex.PF and Ex.PC respectively. The spot was got photographed. The dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination vide memo Ex.PB and Ex.PE. Rough site plan of place of occurrence was prepared vide memo Ex.PX. Blood stained soil was collected from the spot and was sealed vide memo Ex.PN. A broken piece of stick was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PP. Two pairs of shoes, a 'parna' and blood stained shirt were also taken into possession. Foot moulds in respect of foot prints were got prepared and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PQ. Statement of witnesses were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C.
5. It is further the case of prosecution that Investigating Officer SI Mukhtiar Singh (PW-13) again visited the spot the next day i.e. on 26.5.2002 along with finger print expert Prabh Dayal and finger prints were lifted from almirah and from the photo frame. It is further the case of prosecution that on 27.5.2002 he had again visited the spot and that Shamsher Singh had disclosed to him that two empty glasses and a liquor bottle were lying in the cattle shed and that the said bottle and glasses were duly sealed and taken into poss
Circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction in murder cases if it forms a complete narrative excluding reasonable doubt.
The court ruled that weak circumstantial evidence and lack of motive cannot support a murder conviction, necessitating a complete chain of proof.
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
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.
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 judgment emphasizes the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be conclusive and consistent to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
Point of Law : Last seen theory not to be true, motive was not proved, recovery of firearm was doubtful, material contradictions found in evidence rendered and no sufficient link to come to irresisti....
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.