Back
1989 Supreme(All) 390
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H. C. MITTAL, M. M. LAL
BALKAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 2825 Of 1978
Decided On : 07/27/1989
KESHAV SAHAI
The prosecution must prove the motive, extra judicial confession, recovery of clothes, wrist watch and ring etc. from the possession of the appellant under S. 27. Evidence Act, recovery of the skeleton at the pointing out of the appellant himself along with shirts, shoes and licence of the gun and that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in Bihar on the truck beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction for murder.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MOTIVE - EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION - RECOVERY OF CLOTHES, WRIST WATCH AND RING ETC. FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT UNDER S. 27. EVIDENCE ACT - RECOVERY OF THE SKELETON AT THE POINTING OUT OF THE APPELLANT HIMSELF ALONG WITH SHIRTS, SHOES AND LICENCE OF THE GUN - THE APPELLANT WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE DECEASED IN BIHAR ON THE TRUCK - HELD, THE PROSECUTION HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY MOTIVE FOR APPELLANT BALKAR SINGH TO COMMIT MURDER OF JAGEER SINGH - THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ALLEGED EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION AND THE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE HAD ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING AT ALL THE FACTORS POINTED OUT ABOVE - THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ALLEGED RECOVERY AT THE POINTING OUT OF THE ACCUSED IS HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS AND NOT WORTHY OF CREDENCE - THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ALLEGED RECOVERY OF CLOTHES AND BAG AND OTHER ARTICLES OF THE DECEASED AT THE POINTING OUT OF BALKAR SINGH IS ALSO HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS AND NOT SAFE TO BE RELIED UPON - THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT SUCCEEDED IN ESTABLISHING THAT AT THE POINTING OUT OF THE APPELLANT DEAD BODY OF THE DECEASED JAGIR SINGH ALONG WITH HIS SHIRTS, SHOES AND THE LICENCE OF THE GUN WERE RECOVERED - THE PROSECUTION HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE APPELLANT WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE DECEASED IN BIHAR ON THE TRUCK AS SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION - THE PROSECUTION HAS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DEATH OF JAGIR SINGH WAS HOMICIDAL.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that Balkar Singh and co-accused Pyara Singh, who has been acquitted, were drivers on Truck No. PUG 2120 belonging to Jagir Singh, deceased. On 23rd March, 1977 along with the Truck and the two drivers Jagir Singh had gone to the Truck Union at Batala and from there he did not return. On 14-4-1977 cleaner Balvendra Singh along with Gurumeet Singh (P. W. 10) owner of another truck informed the complaint, Gurmit Singh (P. W. 2), brother of the deceased Jagir Singh, that a quarrel had taken place between Pyara Singh and Jagir Singh as the latter wanted to remove Pyara Singh form driving the truck and that Pyara Singh had told Gurmeet Singh (P. W. 10) that he would murder Jagir Singh. It is further alleged that on 22-4-1977 he had received a letter of Jagir Singh information him that he would return on the (sic) May, 1977. When Jagir Singh did not return then on 16-5-1977 complaint Gurmit Singh (P. W. 2) went to enquire at the Truck Union, Batala. Then he met Balkar Singh at his house and the letter told him that Jagir Singh had come to Delhi on 30th April, 1977 to return to the village and he did know anything about him.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution had miserably failed to substantiate any motive for appellant Balkar Singh to commit murder of Jageer Singh. The Court also found that the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged extra judicial confession and the learned Sessions Judge had erred in not considering at all the factors pointed out above. The Court further found that the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged recovery at the pointing out of the accused is highly suspicious and not worthy of credence. The Court also found that the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged recovery of clothes and bag and other articles of the deceased at the pointing out of Balkar Singh is also highly suspicious and not safe to be relied upon. The Court further found that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that at the pointing out of the appellant dead body of the deceased Jagir Singh along with his shirts, shoes and the licence of the gun were recovered. The Court also found that the prosecution has also failed to establish that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in Bihar on the truck as set up by the prosecution. The Court also found that the prosecution has also failed to establish that death of Jagir Singh was homicidal.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved the motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased? 2. Whether the prosecution has proved the extra judicial confession of the appellant? 3. Whether the prosecution has proved the recovery of clothes, wrist watch and ring etc. from the possession of the appellant under S. 27. Evidence Act? 4. Whether the prosecution has proved the recovery of the skeleton at the pointing out of the appellant himself along with shirts, shoes and licence of the gun? 5. Whether the prosecution has proved that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in Bihar on the truck?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate any motive for appellant Balkar Singh to commit murder of Jageer Singh. 2. The prosecution evidence regarding the alleged extra judicial confession and the learned Sessions Judge had erred in not considering at all the factors pointed out above. 3. The prosecution evidence regarding the alleged recovery at the pointing out of the accused is highly suspicious and not worthy of credence. 4. The prosecution evidence regarding the alleged recovery of clothes and bag and other articles of the deceased at the pointing out of Balkar Singh is also highly suspicious and not safe to be relied upon. 5. The prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that at the pointing out of the appellant dead body of the deceased Jagir Singh along with his shirts, shoes and the licence of the gun were recovered. 6. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the appellant was last seen with the deceased in Bihar on the truck as set up by the prosecution. 7. The prosecution has also failed to establish that death of Jagir Singh was homicidal.
Final Decision: The appeal is, therefore, allowed. His conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 and 379, I. P. C. are set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.
( 1 ) BALKAR Singh has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence under S. 302, I. P. C. to life imprisonment, under S. 201, I. P. C. for a period of two years R. I. and fine of Rs. 200 (in default of payment of fine, one year R. I.) and under S. 379 to two years R. I. passed by Sri C. G. Garg III Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution the facts of the case, in brief, are that Truck No. PUG 2120 belonged to Jagir Singh, deceased resident of village Athwal, P. S. Dera Baba Nanak district Gurudaspur and appellant Balkar Singh and co-accused Pyara Singh, who has been acquitted, were drivers thereon. That on 23rd March, 1977 along with the Truck and the two drivers Jagir Singh had gone to the Truck Union at Batala and from there he did not return. On 14-4-1977 cleaner Balvendra Singh along with Gurumeet Singh (P. W. 10) owner of another truck informed the complaint, Gurmit Singh (P. W. 2), brother of the deceased Jagir Singh, that a quarrel had taken place between Pyara Singh and Jagir Singh as the latter wanted to remove Pyara Singh form driving the truck and that Pyara Singh had told Gurmeet Singh (P. W. 10) that he would murder Jagir Singh. It is further alleged that on 22-4-1977 he had received a letter of Jagir Singh information him that he would return on the (sic) May, 1977. When Jagir Singh did not return then on 16-5-1977 complaint Gurmit Singh (P. W. 2) went to enquire at the Truck Union, Batala. Then he met Balkar Singh at his house and the letter told him that Jagir Singh had come to Delhi on 30th April, 1977 to return to the village and he did know anything about him.
( 3 ) ON feeling suspicious that his brother had been murdered, he lodged a writing report (Ex. Ka-14) at police station Dera Baba Nanak district Gurudashpur. On that basis a case under S. 364, I. P. C. was registered at P. S. Dera Baba Nanak on 23rd May, 1977. Thereafter on 25th May, 1977 Subba (P. W. 4) along with Budhwa Singh carried appellant Balkar Singh to the Police Station and told the Investigating Officer. Deedar Singh (P. W. 15) that Balkar Singh had made an extra-judicial confession to them having killed Jagir Singh along with Pyara Singh and left his dead body somewhere in the way within Police Station Chatta district Mathura, and that some of his articles he had kept in a bag at his house in Batala. Thereupon Deedar Singh also recorded the statement of Balkar Singh and then Balkar Singh accompanied the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to his house and took out the bag from the pit which contained a Kurta, Paijama, Phatapuri, Kachcha, Pagri which were in the bag. Balkar Singh is also alleged to have handed over a golden ring and a wrist watch of the deceased. It is further alleged that thereafter Balkar Singh accompanied the Investigation Officer and the witnesses to the place in police station Chatta, district Mathura, where the dead body of Jagir Singh was thrown and from there a skeleton of the dead body having a shirt and shoes lying nearby were also recovered.
( 4 ) CO-ACCUSED Pyara Singh had, however, been already arrested on 22-5-1977 in Batala by Batala Police along with the gun of Jagir Singh, deceased and a case under S. 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him and that fact subsequently came to the notice of Deedar Singh, S. O. and then he was also implicated in the case. As the dead body was found within the district of Mathura, the investigation was entrusted to Police Station Chatta district Mathura and then charge-sheet was submitted by Narrotam Singh Chauhan, S. I. (P. W. 13) and thereafter on committal of the deceased were tried together.
( 5 ) TO prove its case the prosecution in all examined the following fifteen witnesses : karnail Singh (P. W. 1), in whose presence the skeleton was recovered at the pointing out the accused Balkar Singh. Gurmit Singh (P. W. 2) is the complainant, Smt. Balvendra Kaur (P. W. 3) is daughter of the deceased. Subba Sing
