PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL AND RITU TAGORE, JJ.
Satpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRA-D No. 391-DB of 2014 (O&M)
Decided on : 19-01-2024
JUDGMENT :
Lisa Gill, J.
1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging judgment dated 21.10.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 IPC as well as order of sentence dated 24.10.2013 vide which appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It is directed that life imprisonment in this case would mean imprisonment for whole life. Appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, besides, pay a fine of '75,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for offence under Section 201 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case as per prosecution version are that, on 27.10.2010 ASI Raj Kumar (PW16), alongwith HC Pardeep Kumar and other officials were present at Barnala Road, Sirsa for patrolling and crime detection, when they received a telephonic message that head of a woman was found lying in the tank of Water Works situated at Chhatargarh Patti. ASI Raj Kumar (PW16) alongwith other officials reached at Water Works, Chhatargarh Patti where they met Chakkardhar son of Udmi Dutt, who was posted as Superintendant Water Works, Chhatargarh Patti, Sirsa. Statement of Chakkardhar son of Sh. Udmi Dutt was recorded wherein he stated that on 27.10.2010, he alongwith Dwarka Parshad (co-employee) had come to the Water Works in regard to maintenance of tank. At about 10.30 a.m., they saw head of a woman lying in a decomposed condition at the eastern-southern side. It appears that an unknown person had thrown away the head of woman after murdering her with an intent to destroy it. Legal action against unknown person was sought. Formal FIR No.722 dated 27.10.2010 under Sections 302/201 IPC was registered. Investigation was carried out by PW18 Inspector Mouji Ram. Statement of PW8 Veerpal Kaur (niece of the deceased and appellant), PW9 Vishal (son of the deceased and appellant), PW13 Baldev Singh (brother of the deceased), Anita wife of Baldev and PW15 Rajinder were recorded. Appellant (husband of the deceased) was arrested on 29.10.2010.
3. PW13 Baldev Singh, brother of the deceased, stated that his sister Rani @ Veerpal Kaur was married to Satpal (appellant) 13 years ago. Two daughters and a son were born out of the wedlock. He stated that on 18.10.2010, appellant took his sister Rani @ Veerpal Kaur from Sardulgarh, i.e. where Baldev Singh resides, to Sirsa and that on 22.10.2010, appellant informed that Rani @ Veerpal Kaur (deceased) had left her home and Baldev Singh should find out from the relations as to where she had gone. Baldev Singh stated that he inquired from all his relatives about his sister, Rani @Veerpal Kaur but she could not be found and that on 29.10.2010 they came to know that a decapitated head of a female had been recovered from a tank of Water Works at Chhatargarh Patti, upon which they came to enquire from Police Station. He and his wife, Anita identified the chopped off head to be of Rani @Veerpal Kaur, his sister from artificial earrings and nose pin which were worn by her. He further stated that he was confident that his brother-in-law (appellant) had chopped off her head with a sharp edged weapon and thrown the same in the tank of Water Works, Chattargarh Patti and had thrown remaining body parts somewhere else. His wife, Anita suffered statement on 29.10.2010 on similar lines.
4. PW8 Veerpal Kaur, niece of appellant and deceased in her statement dated 29.10.2010, Ex.PJ, stated that her marriage was solemnized about three years prior to the incident in question, but due to strained relations with her husband she resided with her father at Chattargarh Patti, Sirsa for the last one year. Four days prior to Dussehra festival, she had gone to the house of her paternal aunt (sister of her father) at Rampura Phul, District Bathinda. When she came back on 23.10.2010 to her parental ho
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain conclusively proving guilt; failure to provide plausible explanations by the accused strengthens the case for conviction.
The mere recovery of a body from an accused's statement is insufficient for conviction under murder charges; corroborative evidence is essential.
Sections 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the chain of events pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused-appellant was not established based on circumstantial evidence.
Point of law: Conviction set aside – Murder case - duty is cast upon the prosecution to produce worthwhile evidence to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reveals that whenever a Court desires to give judgment as to any legal right or liability depend on the existence of facts which he asserts....
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
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.