Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, H.S. Grewal, JJ
Jarnail Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-882-DB-2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ruchi Sekhri
For the Respondents: Pooja Nayar Sharma
In cases of circumstantial evidence, if the chain of events is complete and unequivocally points to the accused as the perpetrator, the conviction is sustainable. Minor investigative lapses or the non-production of certain medical documents do not invalidate the case if the core testimonial and scientific evidence is reliable.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 376, 450, and 201 - Conviction for house-trespass, rape, and murder - Circumstantial evidence - Reliance on last-seen theory - Need for corroboration - Extra-judicial confession as a piece of evidence - Importance of complete chain of circumstances. (Paras 34-39, 41-42, 54, 56)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Appraisal of evidence - Withholding of medical evidence - Adverse inference - Where main evidence is reliable and cogent, minor infirmities arising from non-examination of certain records or witnesses do not vitiate the prosecution case. (Paras 44-46)
Facts of the case:
The convict was charged with the abduction, rape, and murder of a minor child, followed by the concealment of the body in a burial pit. Prosecution evidence included the observation of the accused at the crime scene shortly after the abduction, the recovery of the body from the site where the accused was last seen, and an extra-judicial confession made by the accused to a local headman. The defense challenged the identification and the reliability of the circumstantial chain.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that while certain details provided by witnesses regarding the circumstances of the abduction may contain slight exaggerations, the foundational facts—namely the presence of the accused at the disposal site and the subsequent recovery of the body—remain firmly established. The chain of circumstances is complete, rendering the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the withholding of certain medical reports by the investigative agency vitiates the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: When the various links in a chain of circumstantial evidence are satisfactorily established and lead to the accused as the probable assailant, the conviction can form a sound basis. The absence of a complete medical record, while inviting an adverse inference, does not automatically destroy the prosecution's case if other independent and reliable evidence sufficiently proves the charges.
Result: Appeal dismissed. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment are upheld, with a minor modification that the sentence in default of payment of fine shall be converted to simple imprisonment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background leading to conviction for rape and murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. establishment of corpus delicti and presence of the accused. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. assessment of testimonial discrepancies and evidentiary doubt regarding kidnapping. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. last seen theory and conduct leading to recovery of evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. application of last seen theory and section 106 evidence act. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. admissibility and evidentiary weight of extra-judicial confession. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 7. handling of withheld medical evidence and adverse inference. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 8. motive and chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 9. sufficiency of circumstantial chain for upholding conviction. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Section |
|---|---|---|---|
| 79 | 16.05.2010 | Boha | 450, 302, 201 IPC (Vide DDR No.28 dated 16.05.2010, Section 376 IPC added) |
| Criminal Case number before the Sessions Court | Sessions Case No.18 dated 09.09.2010 |
| Date of Decision | 12.06.2012 |
| Date of order on the quantum of sentence | 12.06.2012 |
| Name of the accused | Jarnail Singh |
| Name of convict | Jarnail Singh |
| Conviction under Sections | 450, 376, 302, 201 IPC |
| Sentence imposed | Imprisonment for life |
| Sentence imposed | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Section | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine in INR | Sentence in default of payment of fine |
| 450 IPC | RI for 7 years | 2000 | RI for 1 month |
| 376 IPC | RI for 10 years | 5000 | RI for 2 months |
| 302 IPC | RI for life | 10000 | RI for 2 months |
| 201 IPC | RI for 7 years | 2000 | RI for 1 month |
1. Challenging the conviction and the consequent sentence as captioned above, the convict came up before this Court by filing the present criminal appeal in the year 2012.
2. The facts of the case are that on 16th May 2010, the above captioned FIR was registered based on the information given by the father of the deceased (PW-1), in which he named the convict Jarnail Singh as the suspect.
3. Victim’s father (PW-1) informed the police that he worked as a laborer. On 15th May 2010, he along with his wife (Victim’s mother), his brother (PW-2, Victim’s Chacha), and his sister-in-law (Victim’s Chachi), his two daughters, namely victim ‘A’ aged 9 years, younger daughter aged 5-6 years and son aged 3 years, were sleeping in the courtyard of his house. The daughters were sleeping on one cot, and the courtyard light was on. At around 12:30 midnight, he heard a noise of opening of the door and noticed that Jarnail Singh (appellant herein) son of Chhota Singh, resident of village Jhalbuti, Police Station Boha, who was also PW-1’s relative and working as a chowkidar in Gaushala at Boha, picked up his daughter, ‘A’, from the cot, and ran away. In the meantime, his wife, brother (PW-2), and sister-in-law woke up. They called out for Jarnail Singh, but taking advantage of the darkness, he was able to flee, taking away his elder daughter ‘A’.
4. Consequently, they kept on searching for their daughter ‘A’. Later in the morning, around 7:15/7:30 AM, when they reached Gaushala at a place known as Boha, they noticed Jarnail Singh laying bricks on the cremation ground. On this, they inquired from him about their daughter, but upon noticing them, the appellant, Jarnail Singh, fled from the scene of the occurrence. At the spot, they found blood on the earth, which led to the suspicion that Jarnail Singh had buried their daughter after murdering her. Leaving his sister-in-law at the spot, the victim’s parents went to the police station to file a report; however, on the way, they met the SHO, who recorded the father’s statement.
5. As per the statement of PW-15 Investigator Sub Inspector Harwinder Singh, he, along with the victim’s father, PW-1, and mother, reached the cremation ground at Boha. In between, the Police had also called the Naib Tehsildar [Executive
