Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | ||
|---|---|---|
| CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION |
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2010
| HARINDER SINGH @ HIRA | …APPELLANT(S) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Versus
| THE STATE OF PUNJAB | …RESPONDENT(S) |
|---|
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
| This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment |
|---|
dated 14.11.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby
the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment of
the trial court holding the appellant guilty of having committed
offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC for short), and sentencing him to undergo punishment of life
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2019.12.17
16:26:48 IST
Reason:
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/, in default of payment of fine to
undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment (RI for short) for six months
2
on the first count, and RI for three years with a fine of Rs.2000/, in
default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month on the
second count, has been upheld.
| 2. | Sawinder Kaur (PW3), widow of Major Singh filed a complaint on |
|---|
31.01.2004 with the police. In this complaint she alleged that she and
her husband had two sons viz., Gurdev Singh and Hardev Singh. Her
elder son Gurdev Singh (deceased) was adopted by Daljit Kaur, (sister
of her husband) and Suba Singh (husband of Daljit Kaur), since they
had no issue. Harinder Singh (accused), is the son of Lakhwinder
Singh, the elder brother of her husband. Harinder Singh and Suba
Singh jointly purchased a tractor. According to her, she used to visit
the house of Suba Singh to meet her elder son Gurdev Singh
(deceased), and he also used to come over every 1520 days to meet
her. It was further alleged that Harinder Singh had quarrelled with
Gurdev Singh and had accused Gurdev Singh of grabbing the land of
Suba Singh free of cost. She was informed about this fact by Gurdev
Singh. 15 days prior to the lodging of the complaint, Harinder Singh
had told the complainant that Gurdev Singh had gone with some of
his friends on a motorcycle and had not returned for many days.
Thereafter, the complainant enquired about Gurdev Singh from his
friends and also from Harinder Singh, but Harinder Singh did not give
3
any proper reply and kept putting her off on one pretext or the other.
According to the complainant on 31.01.2004 Chanan Singh (PW4),
who is the son of another elder brother of her husband came to her
house and told her that Harinder Singh had met him and told him
that he had committed a grave mistake. About 22/23 days earlier he
had quarrelled with Gurdev Singh (deceased), and had killed him by
| giving a blow of axe ( | kulhara) | and buried his dead body by digging a |
|---|
pit. He also said that he had committed the said act in consultation
with Suba Singh (accused).
| 3. | Upon the said report being lodged, SI Inderjit Singh (PW10), |
|---|
along with Sawinder Kaur and Chanan Singh, went to the house of
Suba Singh at Ajnala and there Harinder Singh was taken into
custody. When Harinder Singh was being questioned, he made a
disclosure statement to the effect that he had buried the dead body of
the Gurdev Singh (deceased) in the field of Suba Singh in village
Chamiari and he said that he could get the body recovered. His
statement (Ex.PD) was recorded on which he put his thumb
impression. The statement was signed by SI Gurmukh Singh (PW5)
and ASI Gurbax Singh. Thereafter, the investigating officer sent a
request (Ex.PN) to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, for deputing
an Executive Magistrate so that the dead body could be recovered in
4
his presence. Thereupon, Naib Tehsildar Amarjit Singh (PW11) joined
the investigation. In the presence of Amarjit Singh, other police
officials on duty and others, accused Harinder Singh dug out the body
of Gurdev Singh from the place disclosed and identified by him. The
clothes of Gurdev Singh were identified by Chanan Singh (PW4) and
Karam Singh (not examined). Recovery memo (Ex. PK) was prepared.
Thereafter, the investigating officer conducted the inquest proceedings
and prepared inquest report (Ex.PA). The entire process of recovery of
dead body was videographed by Constable Ravinder Singh (PW7),
videographer of CIA Staff, Amritsar.
| 4. | The body of Gurdev Singh was sent for postmortem which was |
|---|
conducted by Dr. Ashok Channana (PW1), who found chopped,
incised wound measuring 20 x 13.5 cm on the front of forehead, nose
and both eyes. The underlying bones were fractured into multiple
pieces. He opined that the injuries were antemortem in nature and
this head injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
death. According to him the death of Gurdev Singh had occurred 24
weeks prior to the postmortem.
5. After completing the investigation chargesheet was filed against
the three accused Harinder Singh, Daljit Kaur and Suba Singh who
were charged with having committed the murder of Gurdev Singh
5
( deceased) , and having destroyed the evidence related to the crime. It
appears that Suba Singh and Daljit Kaur were acquitted.
6. The trial court on the basis of evidence led before it came to the
conclusion that the prosecution had proved many circumstances
beyond reasonable doubt, which would clearly indicate that the
appellant had murdered the deceased. Appeal filed by the appellant
before the High Court was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
7. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that this is a case of
circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to link the
circumstances in such a manner that it would lead to only one
conclusion i.e., the guilt of the accused. According to the appellant
the axe was not sent to the CFSL or to the doctor; there is no motive
described; there is no last seen theory and recovery memo of the body
has not been signed by PW3 or other independent witnesses.
8. It is not disputed that deceased Gurdev Singh was adopted by
Suba Singh and Daljit Kaur. The prosecution relies on the following
circumstances:
(i) The recovery of the body of Gurdev Singh at the instance of
the appellant;
(ii) Extra judicial confession made by the appellant to Chanan
Singh(PW4);
(iii) The fact that the accused did not want the deceased to
inherit the estate of Suba Singh;
6
9. SI Inderjit Singh (PW10) is the person who recorded the
complaint (Exh.PC) lodged by Sawinder Kaur (PW3). According to
him, Chanan Singh (PW4) was accompanying Sawinder Kaur.
Thereafter, he along with Sawinder Kaur, Chanan Singh and other
police officials reached the house of Suba Singh at Ajnala and
accusedappellant Harinder Singh was taken into custody. On
interrogation the appellant informed that he had buried the dead body
of Gurdev Singh in the field of Suba Singh in village Chamiari. His
statement (Exh.PD) was recorded, which was thumb marked by him
and signed by SI Gurmukh Singh (PW5) and ASI Gurbax Singh. The
witness sent an application (Exh.PN) to the Deputy Commissioner
requesting that an Executive Magistrate be deputed to be present at
the time of recovery of the dead body. Thereafter, Naib Tehsildar (PW
11) joined the investigation and in his presence the appellantaccused
dug out the body from the place disclosed by him. The dead body was
identified by Karam Singh and Chanan Singh (PW4). The clothes of
the deceased were also identified by them. Thereafter, he prepared
recovery memo (Exh.PN) and inquest report. The entire process was
videographed and photographed.
10. PW11 has fully supported the prosecution and states that when
he went to the spot, appellant Harinder Singh in his presence dug out
7
the dead body from the land of Suba Singh. The dead body was of
Gurdev Singh. He states that he reached the place at about 4.30 P.M.
since he was on VIP duty earlier. There is virtually no cross
examination of this witness.
11. Chanan Singh (PW4) also states that in his presence the
appellantaccused disclosed that he buried the dead body of Gurdev
Singh in the field of Suba Singh. Thereafter, the appellant led the
police to the tubewell of Suba Singh. Chanan Singh (PW4) also
accompanied them. At that place the dead body was got recovered at
the instance of the accused. He denied the suggestion that some
villagers had informed them on 30.10.2010 that some foul smell was
coming from that place. The constable Ravinder Singh (PW7) stated
that on 31.10.2004, he being the videographer attached to the police
department went to the fields of Suba Singh in village Chamiari. The
accused dug out the dead body in his presence and the presence of
other police officials, the complainants Sawinder Kaur, Chanan Singh
and the Magistrate. PW7 videographed the entire recovery process in
the video cassette (Exh. P2).
12. Keeping in view the statements of these witnesses it is proved
that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the appellant
accused Harinder Singh.
8
13. Chanan Singh (PW4) has also made a statement that on
31.10.2004 at about 10:00/11:00 a.m., the accused Harinder Singh
came to his house and confessed that 22 or 23 days earlier he had
murdered Gurdev Singh. According to him, Harinder Singh told him
that on the day of murder he had a quarrel with Gurdev Singh
( deceased) near the tubewell of Suba Singh. He further told him that
he (Harinder Singh) gave a blow with an axe ( kulhara) on the head of
Gurdev Singh who died and then he buried the dead body. In cross
examination, he stated that nobody suspected Harinder Singh before
the accused made extrajudicial confession to him. He also stated
that his statement was recorded by the police prior to the recovery of
the body. He was confronted with his statement recorded under
Section 161 CrPC (Exh.DA) in which it is not recorded that Gurdev
Singh was murdered by Harinder Singh in consultation with Suba
Singh and Daljit Kaur. According to us, this contradiction is
meaningless since Suba Singh and Daljit Kaur have already been
acquitted. There is no effective crossexamination with regard to the
extrajudicial confession. The accused and this witness are closely
related and the extrajudicial confession was made by the accused to a
confidante. There is no reason to disbelieve the same.
14. The statement of PW3 Sawinder Kaur is virtually the repetition
9
of whatever has been stated in the FIR and hence is not being
reproduced. She supports the version that she was present when the
dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused
appellant Harinder Singh.
15. From the statement of PW3 it also stands proved that the
accused kept misinforming Sawinder Kaur and other relatives about
the whereabouts of the deceased. She has clearly stated that firstly on
15.10.2004, the accusedappellant came to her and told her that
Gurdev Singh (deceased) had gone with some boys on a motorcycle
and had not returned. From the reading of the entire evidence the
following circumstances stand proved beyond reasonable doubt:
(1) That Sawinder Kaur had made a complaint to the police
even before the dead body of the deceased was recovered
when Chanan Singh (PW4) had told her that accused
appellant Harinder Singh had made an extrajudicial
confession before Chanan Singh that he had killed the
deceased Gurdev Singh;
(2)
That thereafter the police arrested Harinder Singh and he
made a disclosure statement that he could get the body of
the deceased recovered;
(3)
That the body of the deceased Gurdev Singh was
recovered at the instance of accusedappellant Harinder
Singh in the presence of various witnesses including
Naib Tehsildar Amarjit Singh (PW11);
(4)
The statement of Chanan Singh(PW4) clearly shows
that the accusedappellant had made extrajudicial
10
confession to him that the accused had killed the
deceased Gurdev Singh;
(5)
That accused had misled and misinformed the
complainant Sawinder Kaur (PW1) about the whereabouts
of the deceased.
16. In our view these circumstances by themselves form a complete
chain which clearly leads to only one inference that it is the accused
appellant alone who could have murdered deceased Gurdev Singh.
17. In view of the above discussion we dismiss the appeal. The
appellant who is on bail is directed to surrender forthwith and
undergo the remaining sentence. A copy of this judgment shall be
sent to the trial court to ensure that the appellantaccused undergoes
the remaining part of his sentence. Pending application (s), if any,
shall also stand dismissed.
…………………………………..J.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
………………………………….J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi
December 17, 2019