Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Father-in-Law's Murder Citing Inconsistent Witness Testimony and Flawed Investigation - 2025-10-01

P&H High Court Overturns Murder Conviction, Acquits Son-in-Law Citing Unreliable Testimony and Botched Investigation

Chandigarh - The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted Gurbinder Singh alias Gora in a 2003 murder case, overturning a life sentence handed down by a trial court in 2005. The High Court found the prosecution's case to be riddled with inconsistencies, particularly flagging the unreliable and improved testimony of the sole eyewitness, Manjit Kaur (PW-9), the deceased's daughter.

The appeal challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Muktsar, which had convicted Gurbinder Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of his father-in-law, Gurbachan Singh. The main accused, Mukhtiar Singh, who was the deceased's son-in-law and allegedly had an affair with the deceased's wife, was also convicted but passed away during the pendency of the appeal.

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case, initiated on the statement of Manjit Kaur, alleged that on September 3, 2003, her father Gurbachan Singh was attacked at their farmhouse. She claimed that accused Mukhtiar Singh struck her father with an iron rod ( tarra ), while Gurbinder Singh and another co-accused (since acquitted) pushed him to the ground. The motive was attributed to a marital dispute involving Manjit Kaur and a separate illicit relationship between her mother and Mukhtiar Singh.

The trial court, relying on the eyewitness account of Manjit Kaur and the recovery of the murder weapon at the behest of Gurbinder Singh, convicted both Mukhtiar Singh and Gurbinder Singh, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

Appellant's Arguments

Before the High Court, the counsel for Gurbinder Singh argued that he was falsely implicated. The key arguments were:

• Contradictory FIR: The initial information provided to the police by a Sarpanch only named Mukhtiar Singh as the assailant. Gurbinder Singh and others were named later in the formal FIR, suggesting a deliberate and delayed improvement in the story.
• Unreliable Eyewitness: Manjit Kaur's testimony was assailed as being an improved version of her initial statement. Crucially, the initial investigating officer admitted that during his investigation, it was found that Manjit Kaur was not present at the scene of the crime.
• Flawed Investigation: The police investigation itself was contradictory. While one officer concluded Manjit Kaur was absent, the formal FIR was registered based on her being the complainant and eyewitness.
• Weapon Recovery: The recovery of the iron rod at Gurbinder Singh's instance was challenged as being planted and insignificant, as such an item is commonly available.

High Court's Rationale for Acquittal

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found significant merit in the appellant's contentions. The judgment highlighted several critical flaws in the prosecution's narrative.

The court noted a stark contradiction between the initial information report and the formal FIR. It observed:

"The first information in the present case was provided to SI/SHO Gurbir Singh (PW-10) by Sarpanch Balwant Singh to the effect that he had come to know it that Mukhtiar Singh had caused injuries to the deceased... Subsequently, the instant FIR came to be registered naming Mukhtiar Singh, Harnek Singh, Gurmel Singh @ Gurbinder Singh alias Gora and Baljit Kaur."

The most damaging aspect for the prosecution was the investigating officer's admission regarding the eyewitness. The court emphasized:

"Interestingly, during the course of investigation, Mukhtiar Singh, Harnek Singh and Baljit Kaur were found to have not participated in the occurrence and Mukhtiar Singh was sought to be arrayed as an accused only with the aid of Section 109/120-B IPC. This line of investigation makes the entire prosecution story highly suspicious."

The court concluded that with the sole eyewitness's presence at the scene being doubtful and her testimony being an improved version, the foundation of the prosecution's case crumbles. The alleged recovery of a common iron rod was deemed insufficient to uphold a conviction for murder, especially in the absence of credible direct evidence.

Final Decision

Finding the trial court's judgment unsustainable, the High Court allowed the appeal. Gurbinder Singh alias Gora was acquitted of the charges framed against him.