An appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against a court decision made on 28th February 2008 by High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Chandigarh. The High Court upheld the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hoshiarpur, dated 26th July 2003. In that judgement:
The appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Additionally, a fine of Rs.2,000/-was imposed, with a default sentenced of one month of rigorous imprisonment if the fine was not paid.
The appellant was also convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment. A fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed for this offense, with a default sentence of 15 days of rigorous imprisonment if the fine was not paid.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Sharan Kaur (PW-5), who was married to Balwinder Singh (now deceased), lived with her family in a residence located behind Balwinder Singh’s grocery and Halwai stores in Khudda. During the night of November 12-13, 1997, Balwinder Singh rested in an upper room without a shutter, while Sharan Kaur and her family rested downstairs.
Around 2:30 a.m., Sharan Kaur heard a knock at the door and assumed it was her husband, so she opened it. In the light of the courtyard, she spotted Kirpal Singh, the accused, holding a knife. Kirpal Singh caused a wound to her stomach, while a second attacker grasped her arm. Sharan Kaur’s sons, Goldy and Sonu, were roused by the alarm but neither of them could recognize the second intruder. The attackers escaped by the main entrance.
Sharan Kaur discovered Balwinder Singh on the upper floor, in a severely injured state, with blood coming out of his mouth and head. She asked her sons to bring her brother-in-law Gurnam Singh using a vehicle. Sharan Kaur and Balwinder Singh were brought to Civil Hospital, Tanda, where Balwinder Singh passed away while being transported. Sharan Kaur and Balwinder Singh’s bodies were taken home after receiving initial medical treatment, where they were met by the police.
The prosecution claimed that the attack was driven by jealousy towards Balwinder Singh’s thriving Halwai shop. SHO Swaran Dass (PW-9) took down Sharan Kaur’s statement, which resulted in FIR No.126 of 1997 filed under Sections 302, 307 IPC along with Section 34 IPC. During the trial, Exhibit-PG/2 was identified as the FIR. The Investigating Officer created an inquiry report, gathered proof, and confiscated a bloody shovel and ladder from the location.
Dr. Naresh Kumar (PW-4) performed the examination of Balwinder Singh’s body on November 13, 1997, observing several head wounds from a blunt object as the cause of death. During his examination, Dr. Didar Singh (PW-1) observed an incised wound on Sharan Kaur’s abdomen.
The situation became complicated when Sharan Kaur claimed the Investigating Officer was biased, causing her to seek a transfer of investigation through filed petitions. Even though two closure reports indicated false accusation, the Magistrate did not agree. Kirpal Singh was taken into custody on November 21, 1997, and accused of violating Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The case was referred to the Additional Sessions Judge Court in Hoshiarpur for further proceedings.
The charges were brought against Kirpal Singh by the trial court, and he denied them. Kulwinder Singh was called to stand trial with Kirpal Singh through an application under Section 319 CrPC. Both individuals faced charges under Sections 302, 307 along with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ten witnesses were questioned by the prosecution, while four witnesses for the defense gave their testimony. Kirpal Singh was found guilty by the trial court on July 26, 2003, whereas Kulwinder Singh was acquitted. Kirpal Singh challenged his conviction, while both the State and complainant appealed against Kulwinder Singh’s acquittal.
On February 28, 2008, both appeals, and the revision petition were dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. This challenge by Kirpal Singh questions that decision.
ISSUES RAISED:
Challenge to Conviction and Evidence: The appellant disputed the validity of the conviction, claiming that the prosecution’s evidence was untrustworthy and not enough to justify the decision. The defence highlighted discrepancies and conflicts in the statements of crucial witnesses, specifically Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6).
Investigative Bias: Sharan Kaur claimed there were accusations of bias and partisanship in the investigation. She claimed the police had not accurately documented her statements, which resulted in petitions being filed with various authorities, such as the High Court and the Chief Minister, to request an unbiased investigation.
Motive: The prosecution claimed that the reason for the crime was a combination of business competition and envy, as the victim’s business was more successful than the defendant’s. Nevertheless, the defence contended that there was not enough corroborative evidence to substantiate this motive.
Sequence of Events and Probability: The defence scrutinized the likelihood and reasoning behind the events as narrated by the prosecution. They contended that since the accused had already succeeded in killing Balwinder Singh without being caught, there was no motive for them to take the risk of attacking Sharan Kaur.
Lack of Supporting Evidence: The defence pointed out the absence of corroborative evidence, like finding the weapon used in the crime, to back up the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
CONTENTION:
The accused Kirpal Singh was closely connected to the victim, but this information was hidden in the FIR and witness statements.
The prosecution did not examine Gurmit Singh, another son of the deceased and first informant, which resulted in adverse inference against them.
In a joint ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected appeals from both the State and the accused appellant, who are now contesting the decision in this appeal.
The lawyer representing the defendant in appeal stated that the conclusions in the verdict are unreasonable and conflicting, justifying their dismissal.
The actions of the initial informant and her family, who retrieved the body of the deceased after a doctor confirmed death, call into question their trustworthiness.
Four servants who had been sharing a bed with the dead person were not questioned as witnesses in the trial.
The State’s attorney contended that the testimony from the initial informant and the deceased’s son is untrustworthy and conflicting, pushing for the accused appellant to be acquitted.
The Latin principle ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ does not hold true in Indian criminal law.
The exoneration of one defendant does not necessarily render the prosecution’s case against the appellant invalid.
Both the trial Court and the High Court have separately reviewed the evidence and determined that the appellant is guilty of the charges.
Slight inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses actually enhance their credibility rather than undermining their honesty.
RATIONALE:
Discrepancies in the testimony of important witnesses:
– Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6) were considered completely untrustworthy witnesses. The statements they gave showed notable discrepancies and discrepancies, especially concerning who the attackers were and how the events unfolded.
– The account provided by Sharan Kaur, stating that the accused used a ladder to enter the chaubara, then descended to stab her, was seen as unbelievable. The court deemed it unjustifiable for the attackers to jeopardize their own covertness after successfully carrying out their plan to eliminate Balwinder Singh.
Absence of Supporting Evidence:
– The motive theory presented by the prosecution, based on jealousy stemming from a successful business, lacked evidence and support. There was no concrete proof connecting the accused to the crime, like finding the murder weapon or any forensic evidence.
Trustworthiness of the Initial Source:
– Sharan Kaur’s credibility was weakened even more by her inconsistent statements and her actions throughout the investigation, which involved submitting multiple petitions accusing the investigation of being unfair.
Critical information, like the absence of Kulwinder Singh’s name in the FIR and other petitions, cast doubts on her credibility.
Inadequacies in Medical Evidence and Investigation:
– Dr. Didar Singh’s testimony (PW-1) opposed Sharan Kaur’s claim of going to several hospitals with her husband before coming back home, suggesting that the body probably remained at the house until the police came.
The family visited hospitals, but no medical records were provided by the prosecution, hurting their case even more.
Previous cases and legal principles:
– The court highlighted the significance of evidence quality rather than quantity in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras. Witnesses were separated into completely trustworthy, completely untrustworthy, and those in need of confirmation. Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh’s testimonies were considered completely untrustworthy without any supporting evidence, categorizing them in the second group.
Investigation Results:
– During cross-examination, defence witness Lajpal Singh (DW-3), DIG (Operation), Punjab, mentioned that his investigation revealed the innocence of the accused.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
Not trustworthy witnesses:
– The testimonies provided by Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6) were found to be entirely lacking in credibility. The court labelled their evidence as such due to inherent implausibility and inconsistencies.
Insufficient evidence to support or confirm something:
– Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh did not have supporting evidence for their assertions. The prosecution’s case was significantly weakened by the absence of collaboration.
Purpose:
– The prosecution’s motive was viewed as weak and unlikely. No supporting evidence was found to substantiate the motive attributed to the defendant.
Incorrect Inference:
– Sharan Kaur (PW-5), the first person to report the incident, was found to have falsely implicated Kulwinder Singh. This raised questions about her credibility and the truthfulness of what she said.
Contradictory Claims:
– Daljit Singh (PW-6) provided contradictory statements, specifically about the accused’s whereabouts and the sequence of occurrences. These incongruities were revealed during the interrogation.
Testimony given by Witnesses:
– The conduct of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6) was deemed odd, further diminishing the credibility of their testimonies.
INFERENCE:
Credibility of Witnesses: The court determined that the testimonies provided by the main prosecution witnesses, Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6), were completely lacking in reliability. This evaluation was conducted by taking into account the discrepancies in their accounts and the absence of supporting evidence for their assertions.
Absence of Supporting Proof: The prosecution failed to provide any concrete evidence linking the accused appellant to the crime. The spade, supposedly used in the attack, was discovered at the scene, yet no weapon was found in possession of the accused, ultimately undermining the prosecution’s argument.
Actions of the Initial Informant: The court observed that Sharan Kaur’s behaviour was questionable. In the past, she attempted to involve Kulwinder Singh in different petitions and did not include him in her first FIR. This inconsistency raised concerns about her trustworthiness.
Story of Motive: The prosecution’s explanation of why the crime was committed was seen as lacklustre and implausible. There was no solid proof to support the theory that jealousy of a successful business was the reason for the murder, making it an unreliable motive.
Negative Inference Towards Prosecution: The prosecution faced a negative inference due to their failure to interview other crucial witnesses like the servants and Gurmit Singh, the deceased’s son, who were supposedly at the scene. The exclusion indicated a deficiency in the thoroughness and reliability of the prosecution’s case.
Testimony of Defence Witnesses: The defence called on witnesses, such as a high-ranking police officer, who stated that the investigation concluded the accused was not guilty. This statement backed up the claim that the allegations were untrue and made up.
Overall Conclusion: The court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not inspire confidence and was insufficient to uphold the conviction. The inherent improbabilities and contradictions in the prosecution’s case led to the decision to acquit the accused appellant.
REFERENCE
1. Latest Laws, www.latestlaws.com
2. Advocate Khoj, Supreme Court Judgments,
https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=17497
3. Supreme Court of India, https://www.sci.gov.in
4. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194217858/
NAME: NANDITA NEGI
COLLEGE NAME: GRAPHIC ERA HILL UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN