Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

O R D E R

This appeal has been filed by Ranjit Singh

challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 302

of the IPC for having committed the murder of his wife on

Ist September 1990 in the area of village Sandhwan,

District Faridkot.

As per the prosecution story Gurtej Singh-PW.10 of

village Sandhwan found the dead body of Gurmail Kaur lying

in the house of the appellant on the Ist September 1990.

None of the family members of the appellant were present in

the house at that time but an electric wire was lying near

the dead body. Gurtej Singh-PW. thereafter informed PW.3-

Harjinder Singh-the brother of the deceased, who rushed to

village Sandhwan accompanied by his son Mohan Singh and

Sarpanch Harbhajan Singh. They found the dead body lying

in the house. The matter was reported by Harjinder Singh to

the Police Station at 5.30 a.m. on the 2nd September, 1990.

ASI-Sant Parkash (PW.14) thereafter reached the house of

-2-

the appellant in village Sandhwan. He recorded the inquest

proceedings and sent the dead body for its post-mortem

examination. He also picked up an electric wire 15 feet in

length from the spot. The post-mortem examination

conducted on the 2nd September at 1.45 by Dr. K.K.Agarwal

revealed ten injuries on the dead body. The Doctor opined

that the death had been caused by asphyxia due to

strangulation. It was also opined that after the deceased

had been done to death efforts had been made to electrocute

her as well. During the course of the investigation it

was found that Ranjit Singh - appellant and his sisters

Manjit Kaur and Baljit Kaur and grandmother-Gurcharan Kaur

were also involved in the murder. Baljit Kaur and Manjit

Kaur were accordingly arrested on the September 12, 1990

whereas, as per the prosecution story, the appellant was

produced before the Investigating officer on the same day

by PW.8 Geja Singh before whom he had made an extra

judicial confession. A charge-sheet was also filed against

Ranjit Singh, Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur whereas Gurcharan

Kaur was shown in Column No.2 but was subsequently summoned

and sent up for trial on the basis of an application made

under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. On appearance of

Gurcharan Kaur charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC were

framed against all the accused.

-3-

The prosecution in support of its case relied inter

alia on the evidence of Dr. K.K. Aggarwal (PW.1) who had

conducted the post-mortem, PW.3-Harjinder Singh-the first

informant, PW.4-Mohan Singh, and PW.8-Geja Singh and PW.9-

Arjan Singh to whom Ranjit Singh had made extra judicial

confessions and PW.13-Tejvir Singh to whom Baljit Kaur and

Manjit Kaur had made extra-judicial confessions. After the

close of the prosecution case the statements of the accused

were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They denied

all the allegations against them and stated that they had

never sought any money from Gurnail Kaur's father for the

purpose of sending Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur Canada to

join their mother who was living there. They also pleaded

alibis in defence and also produced evidence to that

effect.

The Trial Court recorded some positive findings in

favour of the accused on a perusal of the evidence. It

observed that there appeared to be no motive for the murder

and none had been suggested by the prosecution and the

story that the accused were attempting to extort money

from the deceased and her father so that they could buy

tickets for going abroad was not based on any evidence. The

court also observed that but for the extra-judicial

confession allegedly made by the accused to PW's. 8,9 and

13, there was no other evidence against the accused. The

-4-

Court then examined this evidence and held that as per the

statement of PW.8 Geja Singh the accused had been arrested

on the 2nd September, 1990 whereas the I.O. PW.14 had

categorically stated that they had been arrested on the 10th

September, 1990 and in this view of the matter the sanctity

of the extra judicial confession was suspect. It has also

observed that PW.9 was closely related to the family of the

deceased and was therefore improbable that the accused

would make an extra judicial confession to him. The Trial

Court accordingly acquitted the accused. The matter was

thereafter taken in appeal to the High Court by the State

of Punjab. The High Court, has on a reconsideration of the

evidence, allowed the State appeal qua Ranjit Singh-the

appellant and dismissed the appeal qua the other two i.e.

Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur. The High Court has opined

that the appellant was the husband of the deceased and as

the death of Gurmail Kaur was homicidal and as the

appellant had made absolutely no effort to raise a hue and

cry despite the fact that his wife had been murdered,

clearly spelt out that he was guilty of the crime. It was

also observed that the extra judicial confession though of

little significance but an inference could be drawn that

the appellant wanted his wife out of the way so that he

could move to Canada to be with his mother who was settled

there. The Court however observed that this was not a case

-5-

of a murder for dowry but was nevertheless a diabolical

crime. The State appeal was accordingly allowed and the

appellant sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302

of the IPC. This statutory appeal has been filed by Ranjit

Singh.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

very carefully and had gone through the record. The Trial

Court had gone into the evidence and observed that there

was no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime.

It is true that the incident happened in the matrimonial

home and some presumption regarding the special knowledge

etc. could be raised in such a situation. But the basic

onus on the prosecution is to prove its case and the onus

does not change merely because the victim is the wife and

the accused the husband and the incident happened in the

matrimonial home. In this case it has been found that the

extra-judicial confession has been made by the appellant to

two persons i.e. Geja Singh and Arjun Singh. The Trial

Court had given very good reasons for discarding this

evidence by observing that the appellant along with his

sisters were in custody from the 2nd September, 1990 onwards

and as such the prosecution story that he had been arrested

on the 10th September, 1990 after he had made the extra

judicial confession was unbelievable. The High Court has

-6-

observed however that the extra judicial confession was

really irrelevant in the circumstances, but at the same

time, curiously, relied on those very confessions. We also

find that some of the conclusions drawn by the High Court

are merely conjectural and are not borne out by evidence.

An extra judicial confession is an extremely weak kind of

evidence and conviction on its basis alone is rarely

recorded, there is absolutely no other evidence in the

case. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High

Court was a little stretched out and not possible on the

facts of the case. The view taken by the Trial Court was

clearly possible and should not have been interfered with

by the High Court.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the

judgment of the High Court and direct the appellant's

acquittal. His bail bonds are discharged.

.................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

....................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, March 29, 2011.