Conviction can be made over Extra-Judicial Confession along with other Circumstantial Evidence in absence of ‘Evidence of last seen’.

Lahari Gurrala | Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad | 9th December 2019 

DARSHAN SINGH v. SATE OF PUNJAB., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2009

FACTS:

• An FIR was lodged by Jarnail Singh (PW-7) on 28th March, 2005 at 12:35 pm. He was the member of Nagar Palika, Morinda and had taken 7 Bigha of land on lease from Pritpal Singh, Mohan Singh which he had sown wheat crop. He had also taken 7 Bigha of land on lease from Faqir Chand where again he had sown wheat crop.
• He stated that at about 10:30 am in the morning on that day, he along with Mohinder Singh Lamberdar (Village Headman) and Hari Pal had gone to his field but noticed a foul smell emanating from the land of Pritpal Singh near dump of wheat husk. He noticed a jute bag with maggots around it and suspected it to be a dead body of a man or a woman. Thereafter, he went to report the matter to the Police. Such statement was recorded by Balwant Singh, SHO who later appeared as PW-15.
• Investigations were initiated and the case was registered against unknown persons. Copy of FIR was sent to the concerned Magistrate. Upon examination of the body in the inquest proceedings (Ex.PL), one telephone diary, a plastic bag, a jute bag and ladies wearing cloth were found. The body was found to be decomposed and could not be identified. A Dupatta was found around the neck.
• The post-mortem was conducted on 30th March, 2005. No ligature mark was found present but skin over the Hyoid bone taken for Histopathological examination. The underlying Hyoid bone was found fractured. The probable time of death was 10 days between death and post-mortem examination. The chemical examination report (Ex.PH) stated that Aluminium Phosphide Insecticide was detected in the samples containing parts of small and large intestine of the deceased. Phosphine, a constituent of Aluminium Phosphide, was detected in decomposed pieces of liver, spleen and kidney.
• Dr. Harbhajan Singh on the request of the police opined that the cause of death is poisoning due to Aluminium Phosphide Insecticide, haemorrhage and haemo-thorax due to injury in the left chest as described in the post-mortem report.
• After completion of the investigations including recording of the statement of the witnesses accused Avtar Singh, Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh were made to stand trial. The deceases, Surjit Kaur, was mother of the accused Avtar Singh. Swaran Kaur is wife and Jagmohan is the son of Avtar Singh. Darshan Singh was a servant at Avtar Singh’s house.
• The Prosecution story is that the deceased had inherited 5 Bigha of land to Gurmit Singh(other son of deceased) who died issueless and accused were not happy with this inheritance. Out of this land, she sold 1 bigha and gave the remaining 4 bighas on theka (lease) to accused Avtar Singh at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per bigha. However, Avtar Singh had not been paying the lease amount to her. Panchayats had also been convened over this dispute, where the four accused threatened the deceased.
• The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 23^rd May, 2007/26th May, 2007 acquitted Avatar Singh but convicted Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh.
• The prosecution relied upon PW-7 Jarnail Singh, on whose statement the prosecution process was initiated. He deposed that the investigating officer had recovered one small diary from the inner pocket of undershirt of the deceased which had some telephone numbers and was taken in possession. PW-8 Jagtar Singh, a milk man, deposed that he kept some acid with him for checking the fat of milk. He further stated that accused Swaran Kaur had come to him to get some acid to clean the rust on a cooking vessel and a toilet seat. She took 1⁄2 a bottle of acid from him. PW-11 is Harpal Singh, the Sarpanch of Village Sahauran. He deposed that the deceased came to him on 15th March, 2005 with a grievance that Avtar Singh had not been paying lease money to her and he should facilitate the payment. He requested Avtar Singh and Swaran Kaur to give the lease money to Surjit Kaur and they promised to give the lease money. He later got to know that Surjit Kaur had died.
• The material witness is Kuldeep Singh, son-in-law of the deceased, stated that since, Avtar Singh was not paying lease money, there were differences between mother and son. He deposed that in the month of March, 2005, Swaran Kaur, daughter- in-law of the deceased informed him that Surjit Kaur had left after taking Rs.1,000/- from them towards lease money. It was on 29th March, 2005, he received a telephone call and also read in the newspaper that a dead body was found. He identified the dead body of his mother-in-law which was kept in the mortuary. Sukhdev Singh (PW-14) has been examined as a person of last seen. He deposed that on 22nd March, 2005 at about 5:30 am, one man and one woman came on TVS Motor Cycle and they were carrying a gunny bag.
• The investigating officer Balwant Singh was examined as PW-15. He deposed that Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and Ujjagar Singh, sons-in-law of the deceased identified the dead body from clothes as the face was disfigured by pouring acid and they named the accused as the suspects. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer conducted the raids for arresting the accused. He stated that the accused could not be traced in village Sahauran and other places. Thereafter, Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) brought the accused on 3oth March, 2005, Darshan Singh, Jagmohan Singh and Swaran Kaur and got their statements recorded and arrested them.
• Further, accused Swaran Kaur made a disclosure in police custody that she had kept concealed half empty bottle of acid in her house, could get the same recovered and the said acid bottle was recovered. Further, he arrested accused Avtar Singh in a raid conducted in Village Sahauran. Later on, accused Jagmohan Singh gave a disclosure statement that he has kept concealed his TVS Motor Cycle in a room and had kept a folding iron chair concealed in the house of Avtar Singh which were recovered from the disclosed places and where taken into possession.
• Upon examination of Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) as the witness of extra judicial confession, he stated that he was present in his house on 30^th March,2005. At about 10 am, accused Swaran Kaur, Jagmohan Singh and Darshan Singh present in the court came to his house. Swaran Kaur told him that they have committed a big blunder and that she had put a Dupatta on the neck of the deceased and was strangulated. Darshan Singh gave a Kursi (chair) blow on the flank of the deceased when Jagmohan Singh caught hold of the deceased by her arms and, as a result thereof, deceased died. Swaran Kaur also told him that she poured acid on deceased face. The dead body was kept in a gunny bag and put in a cupboard. Swaran Kaur further stated that the dead body was taken on a motor cycle for being thrown in the canal along with Jagmohan Singh.
• However, when they reached the bridge there was unmetalled path and because of the water, the motor cycle could not pass through and they threw the gunny bag in the fields of wheat. Darshan Singh also confessed that he along with Swaran Kaur and Jagmohan Singh have committed the murder of Surjit Kaur and recounted the same story. Darshan Singh also confessed that he along with Swaran Kaur and Jagmohan Singh have committed the murder of Surjit Kaur.
• The learned trial court relied upon the statement of Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) and that of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) to convict the accused Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh. Later on, an appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana where the court dismissed the appeals by the appellants relying on the statements of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) and the motive proved by Harpal Singh (PW-11) Sarpanch.

ISSUE

In the absence evidence of last seen, the other evidence is of extra judicial confession, so can this evidence be made base for conviction along with circumstantial evidence when proved?

HELD:

• It was held that although the witness (PW-14) of last seen could not identify the appellants, but the fact remains that he identified that a jute bag was thrown by a man and a woman who came on a TVS Motorcycle. Therefore, even though the witness could not identify the appellants in court as the persons who had thrown the jute bag, the fact that the jute bag was thrown by a man and a woman on a TVS motorcycle is relevant in chain of events in support of the prosecution case.
• It was also held that though Darshan Singh is not a member of the family of the accused and has no motive in the commission of crime, it was observed that Darshan Singh was convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession made before Bhupinder Singh (PW-16). In the extra-judicial confession, Darshan Singh has deposed that he has given a Kursi (Chair) blow on the flank of Surjit Kaur. The post-mortem report (Ex. PJ) shows fracture of Hyoid bone, an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture of the 6th and 7th rib. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made by Darshan Singh is also supported by medical evidence. Further, Darshan Singh had also disclosed that he had kept concealed a folding iron chair in house of Avtar Singh, the said chair was recovered. The prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged.
• In view of the evidence led and the finding recorded by the Courts below, we do not find any merit in the present appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The sentence of the appellants were suspended by this Court. They shall now surrender to undergo the remaining sentence.