Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Murder Conviction in 22-Year-Old Case, Citing Overwhelming Eyewitness and Circumstantial Evidence - 2025-10-01

High Court Upholds Life Sentence in 1996 Murder Case, Dismisses Appeal After 22 Years

CHANDIGARH – The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Pawan Kumar Singh for a murder committed over two decades ago, dismissing an appeal that has been pending for nearly 22 years. The Court found the eyewitness testimony of the deceased's brothers to be credible and corroborated by strong circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to the night of July 8, 1996, when Lachhman Singh was brutally murdered while sleeping on the roof of his house in Village Bhuttan Kalan, Sirsa. The appellant, Pawan Kumar Singh, was the brother-in-law of the deceased, whose sister had been married to Lachhman Singh but had passed away a couple of years prior to the incident.

The prosecution argued that the motive for the murder was an illicit relationship that the deceased, Lachhman Singh, had developed with the appellant's sister-in-law ( bhabhi ). This relationship was a source of animosity for the appellant.

On the fateful night, the deceased's two brothers, Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) and Ram Singh (PW-2), were sleeping in the courtyard below. At around 11:30 PM, they were awakened by their brother's screams of "Maar Diya, Maar Diya" (I've been killed). Rushing to the roof, they testified to seeing the appellant, Pawan Kumar Singh, inflicting a blow on Lachhman Singh's neck with a kulhari (axe). The appellant then fled the scene with the weapon. Bhagwan Singh promptly lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the police.

After a trial, the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, found Pawan Kumar Singh guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and, on February 8, 2005, sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant subsequently filed an appeal in the High Court in March 2005.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellant's counsel raised several key arguments challenging the trial court's judgment:

- Delay in FIR: It was contended that there was a significant delay in filing the FIR, which cast doubt on the prosecution's story.

- Eyewitness Credibility: The defense argued that the eyewitness accounts of the deceased's brothers were unreliable as they were interested witnesses and their claim of identifying the appellant in the dark was improbable.

- Recovery of Weapon: The recovery of the blood-stained axe based on the appellant’s disclosure statement was challenged as being manipulated and unreliable.

The State, however, countered that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. They maintained that the delay in the FIR was minimal and adequately explained by the rural setting and the time taken to travel to the police station. The State emphasized that the eyewitnesses were natural and credible, having been present at the scene, and that there was sufficient light from an electric bulb to identify the appellant, who was a close relative.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and dismissed the appellant's contentions. The bench held that the delay in lodging the FIR was not inordinate or unexplained, especially given the circumstances.

On the crucial issue of eyewitness testimony, the Court found the statements of Bhagwan Singh and Ram Singh to be consistent, credible, and "unshaken" despite rigorous cross-examination. The Court noted:

"From a close and careful consideration of statements of Bhagwan Singh (PW-1) and Ram Singh (PW-2), who are no doubt real brothers of the deceased, we do not find any infirmity in their deposition... They emerged unshaken despite the fact that they appeared in the witness box on 20.02.2003 after a period of more than 16 years of the occurrence."

The Court affirmed that the presence of an electric bulb provided sufficient light for identification, and since the appellant was a well-known relative, there was no chance of mistaken identity.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the strength of the circumstantial evidence that corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The recovery of the blood-stained kulhari at the instance of the appellant and the subsequent forensic report confirming the presence of human blood on it formed a crucial link in the chain of evidence. The Court concluded that the cumulative effect of the direct and circumstantial evidence pointed irrefutably to the appellant's guilt.

Final Decision

Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court concluded that the trial court's decision was well-founded and based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for Pawan Kumar Singh were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, bringing a legal conclusion to a case that spanned over two decades.