Pavitar Singh vs State Of Pb.
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 03.09.2026
Pronounced on: 10.09.2026
Uploaded on: 10.09.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
1. CRA No.528-DB of 2005
Pavitar Singh
…Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent
2. CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005
Satinder Pal Singh
…Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Argued by:- Mr. Surmeet S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA No.528-DB of 2005 .
Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate
for the appellant in CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005.
Ms. Jagriti Kalia, AAG, Punjab.
*
MANDEEP PANNU, J .
1. The above-said two appeals have been filed by the appellants
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.06.2005
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -2-
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby the
appellants have been convicted along with co-accused Hari Krishan under
Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and appellant Pavittar Singh has further
been convicted under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act as follows:-
Convicts Under Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
Section awarded in default of
payment of
fine
Pavittar Singh
& Satinder Pal
Singh
Section 302 Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/- R.I. for 02
IPC each each years each
Pavittar Singh
& Satinder Pal
Singh
Section 201 R.I. for 03 years -- --
IPC each
Pavittar Singh Section
25/54/59 of
the Arms
Act
R.I. for 01 year Rs.500/- R.I. for 01
month
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
2. Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of same judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, they are being decided by this common
judgment.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 09.09.2002, at
about 5:00 P.M., a police party headed by Inspector Surinder Pal Singh, In-
charge, CIA Staff, Barnala, happened to be present at Kutchery Chowk,
Barnala, while on routine patrolling duty and checking of bad elements. At
that time, a secret information was received that Nassem Ahmad son of
Naseera Hakim, a permanent resident of Soram, U.P., who was residing at
Tapa, Barnala and was carrying on the profession of a Hakim, had been
missing for about 5½ months and used to visit Tapa. It was further
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -3-
informed that he was on visiting terms with Satinder Pal Singh, Hari
Krishan Singh @ Hari Krishan and Pavittar Singh with whom he had
developed some differences. The informer further disclosed that all the
three persons had entered into a conspiracy and had kidnapped and
murdered Naseem Ahmad and thereafter, disposed of his dead body.
4. The Investigating Officer, considering the information to be
truthful and credible, prepared a ruqa and sent the same through Head
Constable Bhagwant Singh, leading to the registration of FIR No.313 dated
09.09.2002 under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC
registered at Police Station Kotwali, Barnala, by SI Paramjit Singh,
whereupon investigating was set into motion.
5. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to the shop of Rias
Ahmad, also referred to Riece Ahmad in the record, and met him along
with Mohd. Sujad Mian. They were apprised of the secret information and
were joined in the investigation. Their statements were recorded by
Inspector Surinder Pal Singh and a search was, thereafter, launched to
apprehend the accused, but without success. On 10.09.2002, during
investigation, Inspector Surinder Pal Singh, along with other police
officials, met Rias Ahmad and Matloob Ahmad near Kutchery Chowk,
Barnala and they were joined in the investigation. When the police party,
along with these persons, was proceeding on Nanaksar Bye-pass road,
Barnala, near Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chowk, accused Satinder Pal Singh
was seen coming there. He was apprehended and taken into police custody.
6. During interrogation, accused Satinder Pal Singh suffered a
disclosure statement stating that he had put the deceased to death and had
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -4-
buried his dead body after digging out earth in the courtyard of his house,
of which place he alone knew and from where he could get the same
recovered. The disclosure statement was reduced into writing, signed by
the accused and attested by the witnesses. Thereafter, a request was made
to the SDM Barnala, for exhumation of the dead body, pursuant to which
Gurmukh Singh, Niab Tehsildar, was deputed. In the presence of Niab
Tehsildar, accused Satinder Pal Singh took the police party to his house
and, after opening the locks, got the dead body recovered. The dead body
was found in a highly decomposed condition and was identified by Rias
Ahmad and Matloob Ahmad. The necessary documents, including the
inquest proceedings, were prepared. The dead body, along with articles
consisting of plain earth and blood-stained earth, were taken into
possession after preparing separate sealed parcels bearing the seal
impression “SPS”. The police also took into possession blood-stained hair
found near the dead body, a letter and three currency notes of Rs.10/-
denomination each, which were lying near the dead body wrapped in a
polythene paper. Separate memos were prepared and duly attested by the
witnesses. The police further took into possession a kahi , a type of spade
used for digging out the dead body, and the Investigating Officer prepared a
rough site plan of the place of recovery with correct marginal notes. The
statements of the witnesses were recorded and the dead body was sent
through Head Constable Sukhdev Singh for post-mortem examination to
Civil Hospital, Barnala. The articles recovered were handed over to the
MHC on return to the police station. In view of the decomposed condition
of the dead body, the authorities of Civil Hospital, Barnala, referred the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -5-
same to Government Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, for examination.
7. On 19.09.2002, accused Pavittar Singh and Hari Krishan were
produced before the police by Gani Khan and were taken into police
custody. During interrogation, accused Pavittar Singh suffered a disclosure
statement that he had kept concealed one pistol along with cartridges
wrapped in a polythene bag beneath the fodder in a room meant for
stacking dry fodder, of which place he alone knew and from where he
could get the same recovered. The statement was reduced into writing,
signed by the accused and attested by the witnesses. Pursuant thereto,
accused Pavittar Singh led the police party to the disclosed place in his
house and got recovered one 12-bore country-made pistol and two live
cartridges of the same bore. A rough sketch of the weapon was prepared
and the recovered articles were taken into possession after converting them
into a parcel sealed with the seal impression "SPS" of the Investigating
Officer. A recovery memo and rough site plan of the place of recovery were
prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The recovered
articles were thereafter deposited with the MHC. A ruqa regarding the
recovery was prepared and sent to the Police Station through Head
Constable Darshan Singh, leading to the registration of a separate case, FIR
No.327 dated 19.09.2002 under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act at Police
Station Kotwali, Barnala, by ASI Jalwinder Singh. On return to the police
station, the articles were handed over to ASI Manjit Singh.
8. On 20.09.2002, accused Hari Krishan, during interrogation,
suffered a disclosure statement that he had concealed one kirpan in a room
of his house, of which place he alone knew and from where he could get
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -6-
the same recovered. His statement was reduced into writing and signed by
the witnesses. Thereafter, accused Hari Krishan led the police party to the
disclosed place and got the kirpan recovered. After preparing its rough
sketch, the kirpan was converted into a parcel bearing the seal impression
"SPS" and taken into police possession through a recovery memo. A rough
site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared, statements of the
witnesses were recorded and the recovered article was deposited with the
MHC.
9. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer
took into possession the medical record, recorded the statements of the
witnesses and sent the recovered articles to the Forensic Science
Laboratory. An application was also moved before the Illaqa Magistrate
seeking a sample of the hair of the accused, but the accused refused to give
the same. The Investigating Officer got prepared a scaled site plan of the
place of occurrence/recovery of the dead body. On receipt of the reports of
the Forensic Science Laboratory and after obtaining the requisite sanction
for prosecution from the Additional District Magistrate, the investigation
was completed.
10. Two challans were filed arising out of the two separate FIRs.
However, both the cases were committed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, to the Court of Sessions. Learned Court of
Sessions consolidated both the cases, treating FIR No.313 dated
09.09.2002 as the lead case, in which the evidence was recorded. Both the
cases were accordingly tried jointly.
11. Finding a prima-facie case, the learned Additional Sessions
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -7-
Judge, Barnala, vide order dated 25.01.2005 framed charges against all the
three accused under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, and under Section
25/54/59 of the Arms Act against accused Pavittar Singh. The accused
pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
12 The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PW-1
HC Nirmal Singh, PW-2 Constable Amrik Singh, PW-3 Avtar Singh, Arms
Clerk, PW-4 HC Sukhdev Singh, PW-5 Rakesh Bansal, Civil Engineer,
PW-6 Dr. S.S. Oberoy, PW-7 HC Malkiat Singh, PW-8 Bhupinder Singh
son of Pritam Singh, PW-9 Abdul Ahmad son of Nasira, PW-10 Gurmukh
Singh, Naib Tehsildar, PW-11 Mohd. Sujad son of Mohd. Liakat, PW-12
Gani Mohd. son of Nathu Khan, PW-13 Riece Ahmad son of Mohd. Ishaq,
PW-14 Dr. Neera, PW-15 Rachhpal Singh, Reader, PW-16 ASI Harbhajan
Singh and PW-17 Inspector Surinderpal Singh.
13. The prosecution also proved on record various documents,
including Ex.PA, affidavit of HC Nirmal Singh; ExPB, affidavit of HC
Nirmal Singh; EX.PC, affidavit of Constable Amrik Singh; Ex.PD,
affidavit of Constable Amrik Singh; Ex.PE, order dated 22.10.2002 passed
by learned ADM, Sangrur; Ex.PF, affidavit of HC Sukhdev Singh; Ex.PG,
scaled site plan; Ex.PH, post mortem examination; rough site plan of
recovery; Ex.PJ and Ex.PJ/2, application to doctor for obtaining opinion
along with endorsement; Ex.PJ/1, Chemical Examination Report; Ex.PK,
Ex.PK/1, Ex.PK/2 and Ex.PK/3, applications to the S.M.O. along with
endorsements; Ex.PL, affidavit of HC Manjit Singh; Ex.PM, statement of
Bhupinder Singh Malli son of Pritam Singh; Ex.PN, recovery memo of
putrid dead body; Ex.PO, recovery memo of simple earth; Ex.PQ, recovery
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -8-
memo of blood-stained earth; Ex.PR, recovery memo of blood-stained hair;
Ex.PS, recovery memo of letter and currency notes; Ex.PT, recovery memo
of spade; Ex.PU, statement of Gani Mohd., Ex-Panch son of Nathu Khan;
Ex.PV, disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; Ex.PX,
statement of Riece Ahmad son of Mohd. Ishaq; Ex.PXX, application for
taking head hairs; Ex.PX/1, Ex.PX/2 and Ex.PX/3, statements of Pavittar
Singh and Harikrishan Singh along with order dated 20.09.2002 passed by
learned ACJM, Barnala; Ex.PY, disclosure statement under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act; Ex.PY/1, statement of Matlov Ahmad son of Mohd.
Takki; Ex.PZ, sketch of country-made 12-bore pistol; Ex.PAA, recovery
memo of country-made 12-bore pistol along with two live cartridges;
Ex.PBB, statement of Inspector S.P. Singh along with endorsement ( Ruqa );
Ex.PBB/1, First Information Report; Ex.PCC, inquest report; Ex.PDD,
rough site plan; Ex.PEE, rough site plan of recovery; Ex.PFF, statement of
S.P. Singh along with endorsement ( Ruqa ); Ex.PFF/1, First Information
Report; Ex.PGG, memo of disclosure statement under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act; Ex.PHH, sketch of Kirpan ; Ex.PII, recovery memo of
Kirpan ; Ex.PJJ, rough site plan of recovery of Kirpan ; and Ex.PKK and
Ex.PLL, Ex.P1, Salwar, Ex.P2 Kameej, Ex.P3 Banyan, Ex.P4 pistol, Ex.P5
and Ex.P-6 live cartridges, Ex.P7 polythene bag, Ex.P8 letter, Ex.P9 to
Ex.P-11 currency notes, Ex.P12 Kahi , Ex.P13 Kirpan.
14. Thereafter, the statements of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances
and evidence put to them and pleaded false implication. In their defence, the
accused proved on record Ex.DE, translation of sale deed; Ex.DF, translation
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -9-
of sale deed; Ex.DG, copy of complaint under Section 364/302 IPC;
Ex.DG/1 to Ex.DG/4 and Ex.DG/5 to Ex.DG/8, handwriting photographs
and negatives; Ex.DH, photocopy of order passed by learned ASJ, Barnala;
Ex.DI, copy of judgment dated 02.05.1986 passed by the SDJM, Barnala;
Ex.DI/1, challan form; Ex.DJ, copy of judgment dated 23.01.1987 passed by
the SDJM, Barnala; Ex.DJ/1, challan form; Ex.DK, copy of judgment dated
02.05.1987 passed by the SDJM, Barnala; Ex.DK/1, challan form; Ex.DL,
list of witnesses in Complaint No.101 dated 10.09.1983; Ex.DL/1, copy of
judgment dated 28.03.1985 passed by the SDJM, Barnala; Ex.DM, challan
form; Ex.DM/1, copy of judgment dated 03.06.1987 passed by the SDJM,
Barnala; Ex.DN, copy of order dated 19.10.1981 passed by the JMIC,
Barnala; Ex.DN/1, list of witnesses; Ex.DO, copy of order dated 07.12.1981;
Ex.DO/1, copy of list of witnesses; Ex.DP, copy of judgment dated
02.02.1989; Ex.DP/1, challan form; Ex.DQ, copy of order dated 23.11.1981;
and Ex.DQ/1, copy of list of witnesses. The defence also examined DW-1
Raj Kumar, deed writer, DW-2 Rakesh Kumar, deed writer, and DW3
Navdeep Gupta, handwriting expert.
15. After hearing learned APP for the State and learned defence
counsel, learned trial Court convicted all the three accused, namely, Satinder
Pal Singh, Hari Krishan and Pavittar Singh, under Sections 302 and 201 of
the IPC, and accused Pavittar Singh was further convicted under Section
25/54/59 of the Arms Act, as detailed in paragraph No. 1 of the judgment.
16. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the present two appeals have been filed by the appellants,
namely, Satinder Pal Singh and Pavittar Singh.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -10-
17. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
State counsel and have gone through the record carefully.
18. The prosecution case, in substance, is that Naseem Ahmad was
allegedly taken to the house of accused Satinder Pal Singh, where he was
assaulted by the accused and thereafter, his dead body was buried in a pit in
the said house. The prosecution had mainly relied upon PW-8 Bhupinder
Singh as an eyewitness to the occurrence. In his statement recorded by the
police, PW-8 had attributed a specific role to the accused and had stated
that on the relevant date, when he went to the house of Satinder Pal Singh,
he found Naseem Ahmad tied to a chair and the three accused present there,
with Satinder Pal Singh armed with a kirpan , Pavittar Singh holding the
hands of Naseem Ahmad and Hari Kishan holding the chair, while injuries
were being caused to Naseem Ahmad. He had further stated to the police
about the subsequent conduct of the accused and the burial of the dead
body in the house of Satinder Pal Singh. However, when examined before
the trial Court, PW-8 did not support the prosecution case and specifically
denied having witnessed Naseem Ahmad being tied to the chair, the
accused causing injuries to him or Satinder Pal Singh being armed with a
kirpan . He was accordingly declared hostile at the request of learned
Additional Public Prosecutor and was subjected to cross-examination,
during which the material portions of his statement recorded by the police
were put to him, but he denied having made such statements and could not
assign any reason as to how the same came to be recorded therein. Thus,
the testimony of PW-8, in its present form, does not furnish substantive
support to the prosecution version regarding the occurrence. The
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -11-
prosecution case, therefore, requires to be examined on the basis of the
other evidence and circumstances brought on record. The main
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution relate to the recovery of the
dead body, the motive, the last-seen evidence, the extra-judicial confession
and the disclosure statements attributed to accused Satinder Pal Singh and
Hari Krishan. Each of these circumstances, therefore, needs to be examined
separately in the light of the evidence available on record and the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
Identification of dead body
19. A substantial part of the submissions advanced on behalf of
the appellants is directed towards the identification of the dead body. The
prosecution case is that Naseem Ahmad had gone missing and, after about
5½ months of the occurrence, the Investigating Officer, during the course
of investigation, brought PW-10 Gurmukh Singh, Naib Tehsildar/Executing
Magistrate, to the relevant spot, where the dead body was exhumed. Since
the body had remained buried for such a considerable period, it was
naturally in a highly decomposed condition. The question, therefore, is
whether the prosecution had been able to establish, by reliable and cogent
evidence, that the dead body so recovered were those of Naseem Ahmad.
20. The prosecution has led evidence of PW-10 Gurmukh Singh,
Naib Tehsildar, PW-13 Rias Ahmad, PW-17 Inspector Surinder Pal Singh,
as well as the medical witnesses, in this regard. PW-13 Rias Ahmad, who
was related to the deceased, stated that he identified the dead body as that
of Naseem Ahmad. He also stated that he had stitched clothes for the
deceased and identified the clothes recovered from the body as those
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -12-
prepared by him for Naseem Ahmad. PW-10 Gurmukh Singh, who was
present at the time of exhumation, stated that the dead body was identified
by Rias Ahmad and Matloob Ahmad. PW-17 Inspector Surinder Pal Singh
also deposed regarding such identification by witnesses in his presence.
The prosecution has further relied upon the contemporaneous identification
statements, including Ex.PX and Ex.PY/1, as well as the clothes which
were taken into possession and exhibited during the trial.
21. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, has questioned
the very identity of the dead body. It has been argued that the body had
been recovered after about five and a half months and was in a highly
decomposed condition and no DNA examination was conducted. The test
identification proceedings were also not conducted in respect of the clothes
and there are material discrepancies in the evidence regarding the clothes
allegedly found on the body. It has been pointed out that whereas some
witnesses referred to Salwar-Kameej, PW-11 Mohd. Sujad referred to
Kurta-Pyjama and PW-4 HC Sukhdev Singh referred to Kameej and
Pyjama. Particular emphasis has also been placed upon the statement of
PW-14 Dr. Neera in cross-examination that there were no clothes on the
dead body/skeleton. It is, therefore, contended that the identification of the
dead body through the clothes is wholly unreliable.
22. The above mentioned submission does not withstand a
cumulative assessment of the evidence. The identity of the deceased in the
present case is not sought to be established by the clothes alone. The
evidence of identification has to be appreciated in the backdrop of the
entire prosecution case and the circumstances in which the body came to be
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -13-
recovered. PW-13 Rias Ahmad was not a stranger to the deceased. He was
his close relation and specifically stated that he had stitched clothes for
Naseem Ahmad. His identification of the clothes was, therefore, based
upon a circumstance within his personal knowledge. His statement receives
material corroboration from PW-10 Gurmukh Singh, who categorically
stated that the dead body was identified by Rias Ahmad and Matloob
Ahmad, and from PW-17 Inspector Surinder Pal Singh, who also testified
to the identification of the highly decomposed body by these persons.
23. The fact that the body was in a decomposed condition does
not, by itself, render its identification impossible. Significantly, the
evidence of PW-10 indicates that the teeth and jaw of the body were intact.
The prosecution evidence also shows that the body was not reduced to a
condition in which no physical features remained capable of identification.
The witnesses who knew the deceased claimed to have identified the dead
body and nothing substantial has emerged in their cross-examination to
demonstrate that the body recovered could not have been that of Naseem
Ahmad.
24. As regards the discrepancy in the description of the clothes,
the same, in our considered view, does not go to the root of the matter. The
record contains references to Salwar-Kameej at some places and Kurta-
Pyjama/Kameej-Pyjama at others. However, the core fact emerging from
the evidence remains consistent, namely, that the recovered body was
found with articles of clothing and that the clothes recovered from the body
were identified by the persons acquainted with the deceased. The variation
in the description of the lower garment, particularly when the body had
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -14-
remained buried for several months and was in a highly decomposed
condition, cannot be treated as sufficient to discard the otherwise consistent
evidence of identification.
25. Likewise, the statement of PW-14 Dr. Neera in cross-
examination that there were no clothes on the dead body has to be
appreciated in the context of the entire evidence and the contemporaneous
documentary record. A statement elicited in cross-examination cannot be
read in isolation so as to nullify the positive evidence of the other
witnesses, particularly when the prosecution has produced the clothes as
exhibits and there is evidence of their identification. The fact that the
medical witness did not notice or refer to the clothes in the manner
suggested by the defence may, at the highest, constitute a discrepancy in
the evidence. It does not establish that the body recovered was not that of
Naseem Ahmad.
26. The argument regarding non-conducting of DNA examination
also does not persuade us. DNA examination is undoubtedly a valuable
scientific method of establishing identity, but the absence of such an
examination cannot be converted into a rule that identify otherwise
established through reliable ocular, documentary and circumstantial
evidence must necessarily be rejected. The Court has to assess the evidence
actually brought on record. In the present case, the identification was not
resting upon a solitary circumstance. It is supported by the testimony of
persons acquainted with the deceased, the identification of the body and
clothes, the evidence of the Executive Magistrate present at the time of
exhumation, the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -15-
contemporaneous documents forming part of the investigation. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh, 2026 INSC 173 , has observed that where body is
recovered in a decomposed state, the identification stands established
through witness testimony and clothing of the deceased and that absence of
DNA testing not fatal when credible and consistent witness testimony is
available.
27. It is also significant that despite the lengthy cross-examination
of the material witnesses, the defence was unable to elicit anything which
would affirmatively establish that the dead body recovered from the place
of exhumation belonged to some person other than Naseem Ahmad. No
alternative identity of the deceased has been suggested or established. The
defence suggestion that Naseem Ahmad was alive and had not died,
therefore, remains only a suggestion and does not derive support from the
evidence on record.
28. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission that the
identity of the deceased remains doubtful. The discrepancies regarding the
description of the clothes and the statement of PW-14, when considered in
the totality of the evidence, are not of such a nature as to discredit the
substantive evidence of identification. The evidence of PW-13 Rias Ahmad,
corroborated by PW-10 Gurmukh Singh and PW-17 Inspector Surinder Pal
Singh, read with the contemporaneous documentary evidence and the
condition and physical features of the recovered dead body, establishes
with sufficient certainty that the dead body exhumed in the present case,
was that of Naseem Ahmad.
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -16-
29. Consequently, the first foundation circumstance, namely, the
death and identity of Naseem Ahmad, stands duly established by the
prosecution.
Homicidal death
30. Having established the identity of the deceased, the next
question which arises for consideration is as to the nature and cause of his
death. The prosecution has relied upon the post-mortem examination
conducted by PW-6 Dr. S.S. Oberoy, whose findings are duly recorded in
the post-mortem report Ex.PH. The medical evidence discloses four
injuries on the skull of the deceased. Injury No.1 was a cut injury
measuring approximately 3×1 cm going into the cranial cavity, present near
the lower end of the coronal suture on the right side and positioned
transversely. Injury No.2 was a transverse cut measuring approximately
4×0.75 cm, going into the cranial cavity and situated parallel to and about 1
cm behind Injury No.1. Injury No.3 was a cut measuring approximately
3.5×2 cm, going into the cranial cavity and present on the posterior part of
the right parietal region of the skull, about 3.5 cm behind Injury No.2.
Injury No.4 comprised two cuts, each measuring approximately 2×0.2 cm
and lying about 1 cm apart. The doctor opined that all the injuries were
ante-mortem in nature and, after receipt of the report of the Chemical
Examiner Ex.PJ/1, gave his final opinion vide Ex.PJ/2 that the cause of
death was head injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature. He further clarified that the injuries found on the
skull could have been caused by the sharp edge of a kirpan . Thus, the
medical evidence conclusively establishes that the deceased had suffered
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -17-
multiple sharp-edged injuries to the skull and that the death was homicidal
in nature. The medical evidence, therefore, provides an important
corroborative circumstance to the prosecution case, including the
subsequent recovery of a kirpan at the instance of Hari Krishan, the
evidentiary significance of which shall be considered separately.
Discovery of dead body
31. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
discovery of the dead body from the courtyard of the house of
accused Satinder Pal Singh situated at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar,
Barnala
32. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed this
circumstance primarily on the ground that the recovery is surrounded by
material discrepancies and that the prosecution witnesses have not
remained consistent with regard to the date and manner of recovery. It has
also been contended that PW-13 Rias Ahmad did not support the
prosecution case in its entirety and had initially referred to the date as
09.09.2002, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the very recovery
proceedings. The appellant has further sought to rely upon the defence
evidence of DW-1 Raj Kumar and DW-2 Rakesh Kumar to contend that the
house in question was the house of the father of the accused and there is no
reliable evidence to establish that the accused was residing therein or was
in possession or control of the premises.
33. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the
discrepancy regarding the date is wholly inconsequential and has to be
appreciated in the light of the evidence as a whole. It is pointed out that
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -18-
PW-13 Rias Ahmad, though declared hostile, in his cross-examination
clarified the discrepancy and admitted that the correct date was 10.09.2002
and that the earlier mention of 09.09.2002 was a mistake. The State has
further relied upon the testimony of PW-10 Gurmukh Singh, Naib
Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, as well as the other recovery evidence
to contend that the police party was taken to the house by accused Satinder
Pal Singh, the key was handed over by him to the SHO, and after the lock
was opened, the police party was taken into the courtyard, where, after
removing the bricks and digging the pit, the dead body was retrieved. It is
thus submitted that the recovery is a proved circumstance and cannot be
discarded on the basis of a minor discrepancy or merely because one of the
witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case.
34. Having considered the rival submissions, we find that the
circumstance of recovery has to be appreciated on the basis of the entire
evidence relating thereto and not by isolating the discrepancy regarding the
date. PW-10 Gurmukh Singh, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate,
has given a clear account of the recovery proceedings. He has stated that
accused Satinder Pal Singh took the police party to the house, handed over
the key to the SHO and that, after the lock was opened, the police party
was taken into the courtyard by the accused. The bricks in the courtyard
were thereafter removed and a pit was dug with a spade, from which the
dead body of a male was brought out. Thus, the evidence of PW-10
establishes the manner in which the concealed dead body was discovered
from the courtyard. Despite lengthy cross-examination of this witness,
defence counsel failed to extract anything favourable to the accused. There
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -19-
is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of official witness who otherwise
has no interest in the success of the case. The significance of his evidence
is confined to the conduct of the accused in taking the police party to the
house, handing over its key and taking the police party into the courtyard
from where the concealed dead body was recovered.
35. As regards PW-13 Rias Ahmad, the fact that he was declared
hostile does not result in obliteration of his entire testimony. More
importantly, the discrepancy as to whether the recovery proceedings took
place on 09.09.2002 or 10.09.2002 does not survive in the manner
suggested by the appellant, since the witness himself clarified in cross-
examination that the correct date was 10.09.2002 and that the earlier
mention of 09.09.2002 was a mistake. This explanation is also consistent
with the other contemporaneous material relating to the recovery. The said
discrepancy, therefore, cannot be elevated into a circumstance which
renders the entire recovery doubtful.
36. We are also unable to accept the submission that the recovery
loses its significance merely because the appellant sought to establish
through DW-1 Raj Kumar and DW-2 Rakesh Kumar that the house was
that of his father. Even if the house is treated as belonging to or being
associated with the father of the accused, there is nothing convincing on
record to establish that accused Satinder Pal Singh had no connection with
or access to the said house. On the contrary, the conduct attributed to him
by PW-10 taking the police party to the house, handing over its key and
taking the police party into the courtyard, is a circumstance which remains
unexplained. The defence evidence, therefore, does not satisfactorily
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -20-
displace the prosecution evidence regarding the connection of accused with
the premises.
37. What is of particular significance is that the dead body was not
recovered from an open or ordinarily accessible place. It had been buried/
concealed beneath the earth in the courtyard of the house to which accused
Satinder Pal Singh himself led the police party and where he pointed out
the precise spot from which the dead body was recovered. The accused was
thus in a position to furnish information regarding the concealed dead body
which was not otherwise within the knowledge of the police. The discovery
of the dead body from the place pointed out by him, pursuant to the
information furnished by him, constitutes a highly incriminating
circumstance against him. The admissible portion of the disclosure
statement, insofar as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, is
consequently relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti (supra) has held that where
recovery of dead body is from a well and scooty at appellant’s disclosure
and the information provided by the accused led to the discovery of facts
not within public domain, the recovery satisfies the requirements of Section
27 and serves as a strong link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
38. We are also conscious that the mere recovery of a dead body
from a place pointed out by an accused cannot, by itself, be treated as a
confession of guilt. However, in the present case, the recovery is not being
considered in isolation. It has to be appreciated along with the fact that the
dead body of Naseem Ahmad had remained untraced for several months.
The accused Satinder Pal Singh furnished information to the Investigating
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -21-
Officer regarding its concealment and he led the police party to the relevant
house, pointed out the particular place where the body had been concealed
and that, on digging that very spot, the dead body was recovered. The
subsequent identification of the body through the clothes and the
preparation of the recovery and inquest proceedings lend further assurance
to this circumstance.
39. The circumstance, therefore, stands established against
accused Satinder Pal Singh.
Last seen evidence
40. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that
of the deceased being last seen alive in the company of the accused on
15.03.2002. The prosecution principally relies upon the testimony of PW-
11 Mohd. Sujad and PW-13 Rias Ahmad. PW-11 Mohd. Sujad stated that
on 15.03.2002, he, along with Rias Ahmad, was going from Court Chowk,
Barnala towards the bazaar and, near the railway crossing, they saw
Naseem Ahmad in the company of Hari Krishan, Satinder Pal Singh and
Pavittar Singh. According to him, all of them had taken a turn towards
Lakhi Colony, Barnala. He further stated that he knew the accused as they
used to visit Naseem Ahmad. He enquired from Satinder Pal Singh as to
where they were going, to which Satinder Pal Singh replied that they were
going for some work. After they proceeded towards Lakhi Colony, PW-11
did not see Naseem Ahmad thereafter. He further stated that Naseem
Ahmad was wearing a carrot-coloured kurta-pyjama and a cap. He had
thereafter gone to the house of Naseem Ahmad, but he could not be traced.
In his cross-examination, PW-11 maintained that he had seen Naseem
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -22-
Ahmad with the accused and that the suggestion that he had falsely
deposed was incorrect.
41. PW-13 Rias Ahmad materially corroborates the testimony of
PW-11. He stated that on 15.03.2002 he, along with Mohd. Sujad, was
proceeding from Court Chowk, Barnala towards the bazaar and, near the
railway crossing, they saw Satinder Pal Singh, Pavittar Singh and Hari
Krishan along with Naseem Ahmad. They had taken a turn towards Lakhi
Colony. PW-13 stated that he enquired from Satinder Pal Singh as to where
they were going and was told that they were going for some work. He also
stated that Naseem Ahmad was wearing a carrot-coloured kurta-pyjama
and a cap. Thereafter, he did not see Naseem Ahmad. He stated that he had
made efforts to trace him and that enquiries were made in Uttar Pradesh
and Punjab, but without success. He further stated that after Naseem
Ahmad became untraceable, he suspected that he had been taken forcibly
by the accused. PW-13 also denied, in the concluding part of his cross-
examination, the suggestion that he had never seen Naseem Ahmad with
any of the accused or that he had falsely deposed.
42. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought to assail this
circumstance by pointing out various discrepancies and omissions in the
statements of PW-11 and PW-13. It has been argued that the version
regarding the clothes allegedly worn by Naseem Ahmad is not consistent
throughout the prosecution evidence and that the colour of the clothes was
not recorded in the relevant statement/document of PW-13. It has further
been pointed out that PW-13 admitted in cross-examination that certain
facts attributed to him in Court, including the enquiry allegedly made from
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -23-
Naseem Ahmad and the reply attributed to Pavittar Singh, were not
recorded in his earlier statement. Learned counsel has also relied upon the
fact that PW-13 did not lodge any report immediately and that there was a
considerable lapse of time before the dead body was recovered. According
to the appellants, the testimony of these witnesses, particularly in view of
the omissions and the discrepancies regarding the clothes, does not safely
establish the last-seen circumstance. It has also been urged that the mere
fact that the deceased was allegedly seen with the accused on 15.03.2002
cannot, after a gap of several months, lead to an inference that the accused
were responsible for his death.
43. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that the
core of the testimony of both PW-11 and PW-13 remains wholly consistent.
Both witnesses independently state that on 15.03.2002 Naseem Ahmad was
seen alive in the company of all the three accused while proceeding
towards Lakhi Colony. Both also give the same material description of his
clothing, i.e carrot-coloured kurta-pyjama and a cap. The subsequent
recovery of the dead body, after about five and a half to six months, with
clothes corresponding to this description, and the medical opinion
regarding the approximate duration since death, provide substantial
corroboration to the last-seen circumstance. It is argued that the omissions
relied upon by the defence are peripheral and do not affect the basic fact
that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.
44. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully
examined the testimony of PW-11 and PW-13.
45. In our considered view, the core version of these two
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -24-
witnesses inspires confidence. Both witnesses consistently place
themselves together on 15.03.2002 and consistently state that Naseem
Ahmad was then seen in the company of Satinder Pal Singh, Pavittar Singh
and Hari Krishan. Their testimony is also consistent regarding the direction
in which the group proceeded, i.e towards Lakhi Colony. Significantly,
both witnesses gave a substantially similar description of the clothes worn
by Naseem Ahmad, i.e carrot-coloured kurta-pyjama and a cap. This
assumes significance in the backdrop of the subsequent recovery of the
dead body and the evidence regarding the clothes found therewith.
46. The omissions pointed out in the cross-examination of PW-13
do not, in our opinion, demolish the substantive part of his testimony. The
fact that every detail of a conversation was not recorded in the earlier
statement is not, by itself, sufficient to discard the consistent account of the
witness regarding the deceased having been seen in the company of the
accused. Likewise, the fact that PW-13 did not immediately lodge a formal
report cannot be viewed in isolation, particularly when his evidence shows
that efforts were made to trace Naseem Ahmad and enquiries were made at
different places. His conduct, therefore, cannot be said to be so unnatural as
to render his testimony inherently unreliable.
47. We are also conscious that the last-seen circumstance
ordinarily derives its strength from the proximity between the time when
the deceased was last seen with the accused and the time of his death. In
the present case, the dead body was recovered much later, on 10.09.2002.
However, the prosecution evidence does not suggest that Naseem Ahmad
was alive at any time after 15.03.2002. More importantly, the medical
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -25-
evidence regarding the condition of the body and the estimated period since
death of about five and a half to six months substantially corresponds with
the prosecution case that Naseem Ahmad disappeared after 15.03.2002 and
was, thereafter, not seen alive. Thus, the interval between the last sighting
and the recovery of the body cannot, in the peculiar facts of the present
case, be treated as a circumstance destroying the evidentiary value of the
last-seen evidence.
48. The subsequent conduct of the witnesses in attempting to trace
Naseem Ahmad, coupled with the recovery of his dead body and the
approximate period of death, provides corroboration to their account. The
defence has not brought on record any convincing circumstance showing
that Naseem Ahmad was seen alive after 15.03.2002 or that he parted
company with the accused and thereafter, went elsewhere. We are,
therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has established, as a circumstance
in the chain of evidence, that Naseem Ahmad was last seen alive in the
company of all the three accused on 15.03.2002, and that he was not seen
thereafter.
Extra-judicial confession
49. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that
of the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused Pavittar Singh
and Hari Krishan before PW-12 Gani Mohd. This circumstance is,
therefore, relevant only against the said two accused and not against
appellant Satinder Pal Singh.
50. PW-12 Gani Mohd. was examined by the prosecution to prove
that both Pavittar Singh and Hari Krishan had confessed before him
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -26-
regarding their involvement in the murder of Naseem Ahmad. The witness,
however, was discrepant on one particular aspect of his testimony, i.e the
house where dead body was buried and was, accordingly, declared hostile
at the instance of the prosecution. He has deposed that both the accused
confessed that dead body was buried in the house of Pavittar Singh
although case of prosecution from very beginning is that it was buried in
the house of Satinder Pal Singh. The defence has sought to take advantage
of his having been declared hostile and has argued that no reliance can be
placed upon his testimony. It has further been contended that PW-12 is a
stock witness and that his testimony was procured by the investigating
agency to lend support to an otherwise weak prosecution case. According
to learned counsel for the appellants, an extra-judicial confession is
inherently a weak piece of evidence and, in the present case, the fact that
the witness did not fully support the prosecution makes it unsafe to rely
upon the alleged confession.
51. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that
the fact that PW-12 was declared hostile does not result in effacement of
his entire testimony from the record. It has been argued that the material
portion of his evidence remains available for consideration and that the
prosecution case cannot be discarded merely because the witness was
discrepant on one particular aspect. Learned State counsel has further
submitted that the objection that PW-12 was a stock witness has no factual
foundation and that there is nothing on record to show that he had any
reason to falsely implicate Pavittar Singh and Hari Krishan. The extra-
judicial confession, according to the State, also receives assurance from the
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -27-
other circumstances proved on record, particularly the subsequent
investigation and recovery of the dead body.
52. We have considered the rival submissions. It is true that
PW-12 Gani Mohd. was declared hostile as he was discrepant regarding the
house from where dead body was recovered. However, the mere fact that a
witness has been declared hostile does not render his entire testimony
inadmissible or incapable of consideration. The Court is required to
examine the evidence of such a witness in its entirety and to determine
whether any part thereof, which is otherwise found trustworthy and is
corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, can safely be relied upon.
In the present case, the witness was declared hostile only in relation to a
particular aspect of his version but when cross-examined by learned APP
for State, he has clarified that deceased was murdered in the house of
Satinder Pal Singh and by mistake, he stated in his examination-in-chief,
the name of Pavittar Singh accused. His testimony cannot, therefore, be
discarded in toto merely on account of such mistake.
53. We also find no merit in the contention that PW-12 is a stock
witness. The mere description of a witness as a “stock witness” by the
defence cannot, by itself, discredit his testimony. There must be some
material on record showing that the witness was habitually associated with
the police or had been deliberately introduced as a witness for the purpose
of falsely implicating the accused. No such convincing material has been
brought on record. Learned trial Court also considered the objection
regarding the status of PW-12 and, upon an overall appreciation of the
evidence, did not find any sufficient basis to reject his testimony on that
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -28-
ground. The mere fact that the witness was known to the police or that his
statement came to be recorded during the course of investigation does not
make him a stock witness.
54. The extra-judicial confession, of course, has to be scrutinised
with greater care, since it is not a confession recorded before a Magistrate
and its evidentiary value depends upon the credibility of the person to
whom it was allegedly made, the circumstances in which it was made and
the consistency of the confession with the other proved circumstances. In
the present case, the evidence of PW-12 cannot be viewed in isolation. The
prosecution has independently established the disappearance of Naseem
Ahmad after he was last seen in the company of the accused, the
subsequent discovery of his dead body and other incriminating
circumstances forming part of the chain of evidence. The alleged
confession, therefore, does not stand as an isolated circumstance
unsupported by the rest of the prosecution case. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2013(1) RCR(Criminal) 516 ,
has observed that where the witness to whom confession was made handed
over the accused to police and weapon of offence also recovered on basis
of confession and no evidence that witness had applied any kind of force,
the said confessional statement inspires confidence as the same is totally
voluntary and by no means tainted.
55. We are, consequently, of the view that the fact that PW-12 was
declared hostile on a particular aspect, which he clarified in cross-
examination or that the defence has described him as a stock witness, does
not furnish sufficient ground for discarding the material portion of his
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -29-
testimony. To the extent his evidence supports the prosecution regarding
the extra-judicial confession made by Pavittar Singh and Hari Krishan, the
same can be taken into consideration, subject to its being assessed along
with the other circumstances proved on record. Thus, the circumstance of
extra-judicial confession stands established against Pavittar Singh and Hari
Krishan, though not against Satinder Pal Singh.
Recovery of the Weapon of Offence
56. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
recovery of the weapon of offence pursuant to the disclosure statement
suffered by appellant Hari Krishan. PW-17 Inspector Surinder Pal Singh,
the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 20.09.2002, while in police
custody, accused Hari Krishan suffered a disclosure statement that he had
concealed one kirpan , used by him in the commission of the offence, in a
trunk lying in a room of his house, the place of concealment being within
his exclusive knowledge, and that he could get the same recovered. The
disclosure statement was reduced into writing and signed by the accused.
Thereafter, Hari Krishan led the police party to the disclosed place and got
recovered the kirpan from the trunk. The rough site plan of the place of
recovery was prepared, the recovered kirpan was converted into a parcel,
sealed with the seal bearing impression “SPS” and taken into police
possession vide recovery memo Ex.PII. The Investigating Officer identified
the recovered kirpan as Ex.P13 and also deposed regarding its deposit with
the MHC and the preparation of the relevant documents.
57. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid
recovery primarily on the ground that it rests upon the solitary testimony of
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -30-
PW-17 Inspector Surinder Pal Singh. It has been contended that PW-16 ASI
Harbhajan Singh, who was admittedly associated with the investigation and
recovery proceedings, has not stated anything regarding either the
disclosure statement allegedly suffered by Hari Krishan or the recovery of
the kirpan pursuant thereto. It is, therefore, argued that in the absence of
independent corroboration, the solitary testimony of the Investigating
Officer ought not to be made the basis for recording a finding against the
appellant.
58. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that
there is no rule of law that the testimony of the Investigating Officer is to
be discarded merely because it is not corroborated by another witness.
According to learned State counsel, PW-17 has given a specific and
consistent account of the disclosure statement and the consequential
recovery, which is supported by the contemporaneous documentary
evidence, including the recovery memo and site plan, and there is no
material circumstance brought on record to render his testimony unreliable.
59. We have considered the rival submissions. The mere fact that
PW-17 is the Investigating Officer does not, by itself, make his testimony
unworthy of reliance. The Court is required to examine his evidence vis-à-
vis the surrounding circumstances. In the present case, PW-17 has given a
categorical account of the disclosure statement made by Hari Krishan, the
information furnished therein regarding the concealment of the kirpan , the
accused leading the police party to the disclosed place and the consequent
recovery of the weapon from the trunk. His testimony is duly supported by
the contemporaneous documents prepared during the investigation,
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -31-
including the disclosure statement, recovery memo and site plan. The
recovered weapon was identified as Ex.P13 and was duly taken into police
possession. Nothing favourable could be elicited from the cross-
examination of this witness by learned defence counsel.
60. The contention that PW-16 ASI Harbhajan Singh has not
deposed regarding the recovery does not, in our considered view, demolish
the otherwise cogent testimony of PW-17. An omission on the part of an
associated police witness cannot result in the positive testimony of another
witness being discarded altogether, particularly when no material
contradiction or circumstance has been pointed out in the testimony of
PW-17 to suggest that the recovery was fabricated. The fact that the
recovery witness has not specifically deposed about the disclosure
statement or recovery may affect the question of corroboration, but it is not
a legal requirement that every circumstance forming part of a recovery
proceeding must necessarily be proved through more than one witness.
61. More importantly, the recovery is not an isolated
circumstance. The medical evidence regarding the injuries on the skull and
the opinion of the doctor that the injuries could have been caused by the
sharp edge of a kirpan provide material corroboration to the recovery of the
kirpan . The weapon was recovered pursuant to the information furnished
by Hari Krishan from the place of concealment disclosed by him. Thus, the
recovery constitutes a relevant incriminating circumstance against Hari
Krishan and lends further assurance to the prosecution case. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Jagroop Singh (supra) has held that where medical
injuries were caused with the weapon recovered from accused, recovery
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -32-
cannot be disbelieved for failure to match blood on weapon with blood of
deceased and no reason to disbelieve the disclosure statement and the
recovery of the weapon used.
62. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention of learned
counsel for the appellant that the recovery is liable to be discarded merely
because PW-17 is the solitary witness proving the same. The circumstance
of recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of Hari Krishan,
consequently stands established on the record.
Motive
63. The prosecution has next relied upon the circumstance of
motive. In this regard, reliance has primarily been placed upon the
testimony of PW-9 Abdul Ahmed, brother of the deceased. He deposed that
Naseem Ahmad, the deceased, was engaged in the work of selling
medicines as a Hakim and that on 14.03.2002, while he was sitting at the
shop of his brother at Tapa, appellant Pavittar Singh came there at about
11.00 a.m. Pavittar Singh handed over a letter to him with a request that the
same be given to Naseem Ahmad. On the same day, when Naseem Ahmad
returned, the witness handed over the said letter to him. On the following
day, i.e 15.03.2002, Naseem Ahmad went to Barnala and thereafter, did not
return. PW-9 further specifically stated that Satinder Pal Singh, Pavittar
Singh and Hari Kishan owed a sum of Rs.25,000/- to his brother Naseem
Ahmad. Thus, according to the prosecution, there was a subsisting
monetary transaction between the deceased and the accused, furnishing a
plausible motive for the commission of the crime. The prosecution also
relied upon the recovery of the letter, Ex.P8, which contained reference to
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -33-
the amount of Rs.25,000/- and to the deceased meeting the three accused.
64. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that
the testimony of PW-9 with regard to the letter does not inspire confidence.
It was pointed out that PW-9 stated that the letter handed over to him was
in Hindi script, whereas the letter relied upon by the prosecution was in
Punjabi script. It was further submitted that although the letter was
allegedly written by Pavittar Singh, its authorship was not established. In
particular, reliance was placed upon the testimony of DW-3 Naveen Gupta,
the handwriting expert, who did not attribute the handwriting/signature on
the letter to Pavittar Singh. It was, therefore, argued that the alleged letter
could not be relied upon either to establish the monetary transaction or the
motive attributed to the accused.
65. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the
discrepancy regarding the script of the letter is a peripheral matter and does
not discredit the substantive testimony of PW-9 regarding the monetary
transaction between the deceased and the accused. It was further submitted
that the trial Court had rightly noticed that the defence did not put any
specific suggestion to PW-9 disputing the fact that the accused owed
Rs.25,000/- to the deceased. The letter and its recovery were relied upon by
the prosecution only as corroborative material and, therefore, any
controversy regarding handwriting cannot obliterate the other evidence
establishing the motive.
66. We have considered the rival submissions. PW-9 is the brother
of the deceased and his testimony, insofar as it relates to the monetary
transaction, is quite specific. He attributed to the three accused a liability of
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -34-
Rs.25,000/- towards the deceased. Significantly, this assertion was not
specifically challenged in his cross-examination. The defence did not put to
him that there was no such transaction or that the accused did not owe any
amount to the deceased. The trial Court also noticed this aspect and rightly
observed that the alleged motive had not been effectively assailed in cross-
examination. The fact that the witness described the script of the letter as
Hindi, whereas the document relied upon by the prosecution is in Punjabi
script, may create some doubt regarding the precision of his recollection as
to the letter, but such discrepancy, by itself, cannot render his entire
testimony regarding the monetary transaction unreliable.
67. As regards the handwriting evidence, DW-3 Navdeep Gupta
may not have supported the prosecution on the question of authorship of
Ex.P8. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to rest the finding
regarding motive upon the disputed attribution of the handwriting on the
said letter. Even if the letter is kept out of consideration for that limited
purpose, the substantive testimony of PW-9 regarding the liability of
Rs.25,000/- remains on record and has not been dislodged in cross-
examination. The recovery and contents of Ex.P8 may, at best, be treated as
corroborative circumstances and not as the sole foundation of motive. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti (supra) has held that
motive adds strength to prosecution case but is not indispensable for
conviction when a complete chain of circumstances is established.
68. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, we find that
the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that there was a monetary
transaction between the deceased and the accused and that a sum of
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -35-
Rs.25,000/- was due to the deceased from them. The existence of such
monetary liability constitutes a plausible and established motive for the
occurrence. Accordingly, the circumstance of motive stands proved on the
record, notwithstanding the discrepancy regarding the script of the letter or
the opinion of DW-3 with respect to its handwriting.
Offence under Section 201 IPC
69. We now advert to the charge under Section 201 IPC. The
prosecution case is that, after the commission of the murder of Naseem
Ahmad, the dead body was deliberately concealed by burying it in a pit dug
in the courtyard of the house of accused Satinder Pal Singh at Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Nagar, Barnala, with a view to screen the offenders from
legal punishment. The factum of recovery of the dead body from the
concealed pit stands established from the evidence of PW-10 Gurmukh
Singh, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, as well as PW-17
Inspector Surinder Pal Singh. The recovery was not of an ordinary article
lying in an open or accessible place; rather, the body had been buried
beneath the ground and concealed by covering the pit with bricks. The
circumstances in which the police party was taken to the house and the
body was thereafter retrieved from the courtyard assume considerable
significance.
70. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to assail the
conviction under Section 201 IPC by referring to the discrepancies in the
prosecution evidence, particularly with regard to the ownership and
occupation of the house and the role attributed to the individual accused. It
was also contended that the prosecution had failed to establish with
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -36-
certainty who had actually buried the dead body and that the mere recovery
of the body from the courtyard of the house could not, by itself, establish
the requisite intention to screen the offender from legal punishment.
71. We find no merit in the said contention. Section 201 IPC does
not require that the prosecution should necessarily establish by direct
evidence the precise manner in which the dead body was concealed. What
is required is proof that, knowing or having reason to believe that an
offence had been committed, the accused caused evidence of that offence to
disappear, or gave information respecting the offence which he knew or
believed to be false, with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment. In the present case, the deceased had suffered a homicidal
death and, instead of the body being reported to the police or being dealt
with in the ordinary course, it was clandestinely buried in a pit in the
courtyard and remained concealed for several months. The subsequent
recovery of the decomposed body from beneath the ground is a
circumstance which clearly demonstrates an attempt to cause disappearance
of vital evidence of the murder.
72. The objection regarding the ownership of the house also does
not advance the case of the appellants. Even if the house was owned by the
father of Satinder Pal Singh, that circumstance by itself does not explain
the clandestine burial of the dead body in its courtyard or the circumstances
in which the police party was taken to the place of recovery. The
prosecution evidence, read as a whole, establishes that the concealment of
the dead body was a deliberate act intended to prevent its discovery and
thereby screen the perpetrators of the murder from legal consequences. The
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -37-
fact that the body could ultimately be recovered only after the place of
concealment was pointed out and the bricks were removed and the pit dug
further reinforces this conclusion.
73. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution
has successfully established the essential ingredients of Section 201 IPC.
The concealment and burial of the dead body was not an innocuous act but
a deliberate attempt to destroy or suppress material evidence of the murder.
Consequently, the conviction of the appellants under Section 201 IPC calls
for no interference.
74. On a cumulative consideration of the entire evidence and the
circumstances discussed hereinabove, we find that the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing a complete and coherent chain of circumstances
which unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused. The identity of
the deceased as Naseem Ahmad stands satisfactorily established; his death
has been proved to be homicidal by the medical evidence; the evidence
relating to the last seen circumstance, the motive for the commission of the
crime, the recovery of the dead body from the courtyard of the house with
which accused Satinder Pal Singh was connected, and the recoveries
effected pursuant to the disclosures made by the accused, when considered
collectively, form a continuous chain of circumstances. Each of these
circumstances has been examined by us independently and in the light of
the objections raised by learned counsel for the appellants, and we find that
the material circumstances relied upon by the prosecution stand duly
proved. The discrepancies and omissions pointed out by learned counsel,
considered either individually or cumulatively, are not of such a nature as
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -38-
to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case or to break the chain of
circumstances otherwise established on the record. It is well settled that in
a case resting upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved must
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and must
exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
75. In the present case, the circumstances proved by the
prosecution, viewed cumulatively rather than in isolation, satisfy the said
test and lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused were responsible
for the homicidal death of Naseem Ahmad and thereafter, for causing
disappearance of the evidence of the crime. We, therefore, find no
illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by learned trial
Court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201
IPC. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, insofar as they
relate to the aforesaid offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC,
consequently call for no interference and are affirmed.
76. We shall now proceed to examine the separate charge under
Section 25 of the Arms Act against appellant Pavittar Singh, arising out of
the other FIR, which, though tried along with the present case pursuant to
the consolidation of the two challans, relates to a distinct recovery and
offence.
77. The prosecution has also established the charge under Section
25/54/59 of the Arms Act against appellant Pavittar Singh. PW-17
Inspector Surinder Pal Singh has deposed that, on 19.09.2002, Pavittar
Singh suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PY to the effect that he had
concealed a country-made .12 bore pistol, wrapped in glazed paper,
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -39-
beneath the earth under the turi in his room and that he alone knew about
the same and could get it recovered. In pursuance thereof, Pavittar Singh
led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the pistol
Ex.P4 along with two live cartridges Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. The said recovery is
duly corroborated by PW-16 ASI Harbhajan Singh, who was associated
with the investigation and categorically deposed regarding the disclosure
statement as well as the recovery of the pistol and cartridges at the instance
of Pavittar Singh. The recovery memo Ex.PAA and rough sketch Ex.PZ
were duly proved, and the recovered articles were taken into police
possession in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The pistol was
subsequently examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the report
Ex.PKK records that the weapon was in working condition. The requisite
sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act was also duly proved on the
record. Significantly, no material discrepancy or infirmity in the recovery
proceedings could be brought out in the cross-examination of PW-16 or
PW-17. Nothing material was elicited from either of these witnesses so as
to cast doubt upon the recovery or the conscious possession of the weapon
by Pavittar Singh. The defence has also failed to furnish any plausible
explanation for the possession of the said firearm and live cartridges. Thus,
the evidence on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the pistol
and cartridges were recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession
of appellant Pavittar Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement, and that he
was not holding the same under any valid licence or authority. Learned trial
Court, therefore, rightly held appellant Pavittar Singh guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, and we find no ground
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD
CRA No.528-DB of 2005 &
CRA-D No.547-DB of 2005 -40-
to interfere with the said finding of conviction.
78. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.528-DB of 2005, preferred
by Pavittar Singh and Criminal Appeal No.547-DB of 2005, preferred by
Satinder Pal Singh, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 03.06.2005 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, passed by
learned trial Court, are hereby affirmed and upheld. Appellant Pavittar
Singh shall also remain convicted for the offence punishable under Section
25/54/59 of the Arms Act, as held by learned trial Court. The appellants
shall undergo the sentence awarded to them in accordance with law.
79. Accused-appellants, namely, Pavittar Singh and Satinder Pal
Singh are on bail. A copy of the judgment be sent to concerned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, to initiate process of re-arrest of the aforesaid
appellants, so as to serve the remaining part of the sentence.
80. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of
accordingly.
(ARCHANA PURI) (MANDEEP PANNU)
JUDGE JUDGE
10.09.2026
neetu
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
NEETU RANI
2026.09.10 15:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this ORDER/JUDGMENT
PHHC, CHD