Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi And Anr vs State on 23 November, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas
(1 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 371/2016
1. Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi S/o Balvinder Singh, by caste Majbi
Sikh, R/o 18 L.L. W.B. Manuka, District Hanumangarh
2. Kalu Ram S/o Ram Chandra, by caste Jat, R/o 20 L.L. W.
District Hanumangarh
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Judgment
Date of pronouncement : 23/11/2021
Judgment reserved on : 04/10/2021
BY THE COURT : PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.
The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the appellants Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and Kalu Ram being aggrieved of the judgment dated 04.04.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.63/2013, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Name of the Offence for Sentence awarded appellant which convicted Gurpreet Singh Section 302 Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of @ Gopi and 120-B IPC Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM)
(2 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] Section 201/34 Seven years' rigorous imprisonment IPC alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' simple imprisonment.
Kalu Ram Section 302 Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of and 120-B IPC Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.
Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow :
Naseeb Kaur (P.W.3) presented a typed report (Ex.P/11) to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Hanumangrh Junction on 06.07.2013 alleging inter alia that her husband Harnek Singh went missing, whereupon her grandson Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, adopted son of Harnek Singh (the appellant No.1 herein) lodged a missing person report No.11/2013 at the Police Station Sadar, Hanumangarh on 02.07.2013. On 05.07.2013, she and her family members got a call from the Police Station Suratgarh Sadar that a dead body had been found in the canal, on which they went there and identified the dead body to be of her missing husband Harnek Singh. She further alleged that her husband had come to Hanumangarh Junction on
02.07.2013, whereafter her grandson Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and Kalu Ram came there on Kalu Ram's motorcycle No.RJ-07-7M- 2032. They took Harnek Singh with them to Sadul Branch Canal with an intention to kill him and pushed him into the canal and drowned him to death. Gurpreet Singh thereafter got the missing person report lodged so that no one could doubt him. She prayed that a case of murder be registered against Gurpreet Singh and Kalu Ram and appropriate action be taken against them. (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM)
(3 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] On the basis of this report, an FIR No.392/2013 (Ex.P/34) came to be registered at the Police Station Sadar Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC (Ex.P/34). The investigation was undertaken by Subhash Chandra Kachchhawa (P.W.14). The appellants were arrested and after concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against Gurpreet Singh for the offences under Sections 302 IPC in the alternative Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC and against Kalu Ram for the offences under Sections 302 IPC in the alternative Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Since the offence under Section 3 of the SC/St Act was involved in the matter, the case was committed to the Court of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Hanumangarh for trial. Charges were framed by the trial court against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 64 documents to prove its case. Upon being questioned under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the accused denied the same; claimed to be innocent and alleged that they had been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciating the arguments advanced by the defence counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal.
Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu, learned counsel representing the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (4 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. Mr. Harnek Singh went missing somewhere around 01.07.2013. The appellant No.1 Gurpreet Singh, who is the adopted son of Harnek Singh, bonafide lodged the missing person report (Ex.P/14) at the Police Station Hanumangarh Sadar, on the basis whereof, inquiry was conducted. The dead body of Mr. Harnek Singh was recovered on 03.07.2013 in the jurisdiction of Police Station Suratgarh Sadar and proceedings under Section 174 CrPC (Ex.P/20) were initiated. The dead body was severely decomposed and thus, it was impossible for anyone to have identified the same. No plausible evidence was collected regarding identification of the dead body by the relatives. Mr. Sidhu urged that identification of the dead body of Harnek Singh is doubtful because there is a discrepancy regarding the colour of clothes which were found on the dead body vis-a-vis the clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of his disappearance. The prosecution could not collect any evidence whatsoever to link the appellants with the crime, whereafter, fabricated evidence of extra-judicial confession was created at the instance of Mahendra Singh, son-in-law of the deceased, because he was a landless man and he was bearing a grudge that all properties of the deceased would devolve on the appellant No.1 Gurpreet Singh. On the basis of this cooked up extra-judicial confession, the appellants were roped into the case. There is no evidence worth the name on the record of the case to connect the accused Kalu Ram with the crime, but inspite thereof, he was involved in the case. The evidence of the so-called witness of last seen Harphool Singh (P.W.9) is totally unreliable because his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded on 01.08.2013, (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (5 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] i.e. almost one month after the incident. His silence for such a long time makes his testimony doubtable. He, thus, urges that the appreciation of the evidence as undertaken by the trial court concluding that the appellants are liable to be convicted for the murder of Harnek Singh is totally perverse and arbitrary and that the appellants have been held guilty in this case without their being any plausible evidence to support the prosecution case. He, thus, implored the court to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellants of the charges.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants' counsel. He contended that the appellant Gurpreet Singh stood to gain significantly from the death of Harnek Singh. He had been adopted by Harnek Singh and was having an evil eye on the properties of the old man Gurpreet Singh apprehended that Harnek Singh might bequeath his properties to his daughters and that is why, he conspired with the accused Kalu Ram and hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Harnek Singh. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the two appellants took away the deceased from his house on 01.07.2013. The old man was taken to the canal and was drowned by pushing him into the flowing water. He urged that the accused Gurpreet Singh was suspected of foul play and upon being put to stern questioning, he blurted out an extra judicial confession before the witnesses Nikka Singh (P.W.1) and Mahendra Singh (P.W.2) stating that he had eliminated Harnek Singh in order to gain his properties. He further urged that Harphool Singh (P.W.9) gave convincing evidence on the aspect (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (6 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] that he saw Kalu Ram and Gopi taking Harnek Singh with them on a motorcycle. He, thus, urged that as the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused appellants soon before he was murdered, the appellants were under an obligation to explain the circumstances under which, Harnek Singh drowned in the canal. He vehemently urged that the appreciation of evidence as undertaken by the trial court is apposite on all aspects and the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. On these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor, urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the record.
Manifestly, the case of the prosecution is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The material prosecution witnesses have imputed that the appellant Gurpreet Singh, being the adopted son of the deceased Harnek Singh, was keeping an evil eye on the properties of the old man and thus, he conspired with the co-accused Kalu Ram and in furtherance of such design, Harnek Singh was taken away from his house and was pushed into the canal. There is no witness who actually saw the deceased being pushed into the canal. The prosecution relies upon the following three circumstances so as to prove its case:
(i) Motive.
(ii) Last Seen.
(iii) Extra Judicial Confession.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM)
(7 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]
As has been stated above, the theory of motive has been imputed to the accused Gurpreet on the premise that the elimination of Harnek Singh would lead to the automatic consequence of his properties devolving upon the accused. However, it is relevant to state here that there is a significant glitch in this theory because Harnek Singh had four daughters. Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2), who was married to one of the daughters of Harnek Singh, was a landless man and he too had a craving for the properties of the deceased. Manifestly, if Harnek Singh expired intestate, his properties would devolve equally amongst all his legal heirs. The appellant being the adopted son, would get just a part out of these properties. It is relevant to mention here that the appellant had been adopted by his maternal grandfather Shri Harnek Singh vide the Adoption Deed (Ex.P/50) dated 06.04.2011 and from then onwards, till the date of the incident, no complaint had been made at any quarter that the appellant was ever observed making any attempt to maltreat or wsa trying to eliminate the deceased for gaining his properties.
Nikka Singh (P.W.1), one of the son-in-laws of Harnek Singh, was examined as P.W.1. He alleged that his father-in-law refused to give his property to Gurpreet Singh and announced that he would be dividing the same amongst his four daughters. He also alleged that the dead body of (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (8 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] Harnek Singh was identified at Suratgarh Police Station and then, the cremation was conducted. On the next day, a Panchayat was convened, in which, Gurpreet Singh confessed that he had thrown Harnek Singh into the canal. In cross- examination, the witness admitted that immediately after the cremation, he went back to his village with his family members. He stated that whatever deposition he had made in the court, was on the instructions of Mahendra Singh.
Mahendra Singh, another son-in-law of Harnek Singh, was examined as P.W.2. He stated that his father-in- law went missing on 01.07.2013, on which, Gurpreet Singh (the appellant herein) came to him and made an enquiry. Gurpreet Singh then lodged a Missing Person Report. He, Gopi and his three brother-in-laws looked out for Harnek Singh. A call was received from the Suratgarh Police Station regarding a dead body. He and his family members went there and identified the same to be of Harnek Singh. The body was handed over to them and they cremated it. Then a Panchayat was convened, in which, the accused Gurpreet Singh was put to stringent questioning, on which, he confessed that he and Kalu had thrown Harnek Singh into the canal apprehending that his adoptive father (Harnek Singh) might give the properties to his aunts. In cross examination, the witness admitted that he did not own any land. He instructed Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi to get the Missing Person Report lodged. When they were asked to identify (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (9 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] the body, the face was totally decomposed. He was continuously in touch with Gurpreet Singh from 02.07.2013 to 05.07.2013 but during these days, Gurpreet Singh did not tell him anything. His father-in-law owned four bighas of land near the canal. The value of the land was about Rs.8 to 10 lakhs a bigha. A specific suggestion was given to the witness that he had falsely implicated Gurpreet Singh in this case so as to eliminate him from claiming a share in Harnek Singh's land. The witness denied the suggestion.
Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 3) stated that Gurpreet Singh and Kalu took away her husband Harnek Singh with them and pushed him into the canal. She lodged a report at the Police Station Hanumangarh. A Panchayat was convened, in which, Gurpreet Singh confessed that he and Kalu killed 'Papa' (Harnek Singh). The dead body was recovered by Suratgarh police and was identified to be of Harnek Singh. When she lodged the Missing Person Report, her sons-in-law Mahendra Singh, Nikka Singh and Harbans were with her. Gurpreet Singh was apprehensive that Harnek Singh might give his land to his daughters. In cross examination, the witness admitted that she could not say as to when the report was lodged. The boys got the report lodged. She could not say about the contents of the report. The dead body was cremated at about 3 O'clock. Mahendra Singh got the report typed. She submitted the report at the Police Station at about 4 O'clock. A Panchayat was held at her house after the (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (10 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] funeral and the accused Gurpreet Singh was threatened that he should tell the truth, else he would be given to the police. Because of the threats and under fear, Gurpreet Singh admitted his guilt.
Mahendra Singh, Nikka Singh, Harbans and many other villagers were present in the Panchayat. She admitted that all the police proceedings were undertaken under the guidance of Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2) and Nikka Singh (P.W.1). They consulted amongst each other and decided what statement was to be given. Mahendra Singh and others were annoyed when Gurpreet Singh was taken in adoption. It was decided that all the land would be given to him. All her legal heirs were agreeable to this conclusion. She was confronted with the typed written report (Ex.P/11) and her police statement (Ex.D/1), wherein no allegation whatsoever was made regarding the alleged extra-judicial confession.
The relevant extracts from the statement of the witness, which would have a material bearing on the outcome of the case are reproduced hereinbelow :-
"geus 3 cts laLdkj dj fn;k FkkA esjs dks ugha irk "kjhj dks vkx fdlus nhA eq>s lq/k ugha FkhA laLdkj ds ckn ge Fkkus x;s FksA fQj dgk fd laLdkj ls igys ge Fkkus vk x;s FksA ;g nj[kkLr ExP11 odhy ;k tt us fy[kh Fkh eq>s ugha irkA esjs tekbZ nj[kkLr fy[kk dj yk;k FkkA egsUnz flag esjk tekbZ nj[kkLr fy[kkdj yk;k FkkA nj[kkLr esa D;k fy[kk Fkk eSa ugha crk ldrhA egsUnz flag us eq>s ;g crk;k fd esjh tku dks [krjk gS o esjh lqj{kk dh tkos ;g nj[kkLr esa fy[kk gSA ;s nj[kkLr Fkkus esa 4 cts is"k dh FkhA bl nj[kkLr dks nsus ds ckn nkg laLdkj gqvk FkkA iapk;r esa xkao ds dbZ vkneh FkhA eSa Hkh iapk;r esa FkhA laLdkj ds ckn "kke dks gekjs ?kj ij iapk;r gq;h FkhA ftlesa eqfYte xqjizhr dks Mjk;k Fkk fd lgh ckr crk ns ugha rks ge rq>s iqfyl esa idM+k;saxsA Mjkus o (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (11 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] /kedkus ls xqjizhr us viuh xyrh ekuh FkhA ml fnu 7&8 ct x;s FksA iapk;r esa egsUnz flag] fuDdk flag] gjcal flag o dbZ vkSj xkao ds yksx FksA ftl oDr iapk;r gq;h eSa o ?kj dh vU; vkSjrsa ?kj esa "kksd foyki dj jgs Fks o iapk;r xyh esa gks jgh FkhA egsUnz] fuDdk o gjcal oxSjg us vkdj eq>s crk;k fd iapk;r esa xqjizhr us xyrh Lohdkjh gSA vxj xqjizhr us vius tqeZ bdcky esa fnuakd] le; o LFkku dh tkudkjh nh gksrh rks eSa esjs c;ku esa t:j crkrh o ugha egsUnz o fuDdk us le; o LFkku o fnukad ds ckjs esa crk;k ek= bruk gh crk;k Fkk fd ugj esa /kDdk nsdj ekj fn;k FkkA essjs iqfyl us ipkZ okys fnu gh ?kj ij c;ku fy;s Fks tks 5 ,d cts fy;s FksA xqjizhr dks xksn ysus ls iwoZ fj"rsnkjksa ls jk; yh FkhA eq>s ;kn ugha fd fdu&fdu fj"rsnkjksa ls jk; yh FkhA bl ckcr v[k.M ikB Hkh djk;k FkkA egsUnz o fuDdk us iqfyl dh enn dh Fkh o iqfyl dk;Zokgh dks bUgksaus gh laHkkyk FkkA mUgksaus ftl izdkj o tgka c;ku djus Fks oks lHkh dks crk;k FkkA esjs eftLVªsV ds le{k 164 CrPC ds c;ku gq;s FksA esjs 164 ds c;ku ds le; eSa o egsUnz c;ku nsus vk;s FksA geus vkil esa jk; dj yh Fkh fd D;k c;ku nsus gSA egsUnz flag oxSjg dks ukjktxh Fkh fd ge xqjizhr dks xksn ysdj tehu mlds uke dj nsxsAa "
The last witness on which the prosecution banked upon so as to bring home the charges is Harphool Singh (P.W.
9), who gave evidence of last seen in his testimony. The statement of this witness was recorded on 31.08.2014. He alleged that about one year and nine months ago, he was proceeding on his tractor. When he reached near the Ganganagar Phatak, Kalu, Gopi and Harnek Singh met him. Gopi was driving the motorcycle wearing a helmet with its visor removed. The witness called Gopi, but he did not hear his voice. Harnek Singh was sitting behind Gopi and Kalu Ram was sitting at the last. In the next morning, he came to know that Harnek Singh had passed away. He went to the house of Gopi, but later stated on his own that Gopi came to his house and told him that his grandfather had been missing since 11 O'clock. In cross examination, the witness admitted (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (12 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] that Harnek Singh was his uncle, as his father and Harnek Singh were brothers. Harnek Singh was wearing a carrot coloured kurta-pajama, when he last saw him. His police statement was recorded on 01.08.2013.
The evidence of these four witnesses forms the sum and substance of the allegations on which, the case of the prosecution is based.
First, we evaluate the evidence of Harphool Singh (P.W. 9). The witness is the nephew of the deceased. His evidence is ex-facie unbelievable because he stated that he saw the two accused taking Harnek Singh with them on the motorcycle about one year and nine months before the date of deposition. This period would coincide with January 2013. However, the incident took place in July, 2013. Furthermore, the witness alleged that in the very next morning, he came to know that Harnek Singh had passed away. The fact remains that an unidentified dead body was recovered in the jurisdiction of Suratgarh Police Station on 03.07.2013 and was identified by the relatives as being that of Harnek Singh for the first time on 05.07.2013. Thus, the claim of the witness that he got information regarding the death of Harnek Singh on the very next day after he had seen the deceased in the company of the two accused, is totally unacceptable. In addition thereto, despite being a close relative of the deceased and having come to know of his homicidal death, the witness kept silent regarding his claim of (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (13 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] having lastly seen the accused and the deceased together and his statement (Ex.D/4) was recorded as late as on 01.08.2013 i.e. after nearly one month of the incident. Thus, the evidence of Harphool Singh (P.W.9) is not believable and he is not a reliable witness.
The other set of evidence which was relied upon by the trial court so as to connect the accused-appellant with the crime was in the form of extra-judicial confession.
Before proceeding to discuss the evidence of extra judicial confession, it would be fruitful to reproduce the contents of typed report (Ex.P/11), which was got prepared by Mahendra Singh (P.W.2) and submitted with the thumb impression of Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 3):
"fo'k; %& gR;k dk eqdnek ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ckcrA egksn;] mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ;k ulhc dkSj iRuh gjusd flag tkfr etch fl[k fuoklh pd 18 ,y,yMCY;w-ch- fuoklh ek.kqdk dh jgus okyh gSA Jheku~th izkFkhZ;k dk ifr gjusd flag dh fnukad 2-7-2013 dks izkFkhZ;k ds nksfgrs xqjizhr flag mQZ xksih us iqfyl Fkkuk lnj esa xqe"kqnxh fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ FkhA Jheku~th gesa dy fnukad 5-7-2013 dks lwjrx<+ lnj Fkkuk ls Qksu vk;k fd ,d O;fDr dh yk"k ugj esa feyh gS ftl ij ge ogka x;s rks mDr yk"k izkFkhZ;k dh ifr gjusd flag dh FkhA Jheku~th izkFkhZ;k dk ifr fnukad 2-7-2013 dks guqekux<+ taD"ku vk;k Fkk rHkh izkFkhZ;k dk nksfgrk xqjizhr flag mQZ xksih fuoklh pd 18 ,y,yMCY;w-@ch- o dkyqjke iq= jkepUnz tkfr tkV fuoklh pd 20 ,y,yMCY;w- dkyqjke ds eksVjlkbZfdy ua- vkjts07&7,e&2032 ij guqekux<+ taD"ku vk;s o gjusd flag dks eksVjlkbZfdy ij p<+kdj lknqy czkap ugj ij ys x;s o mldh gR;k djus ds bjkns ls gjusd flag dks ugj esa fxjk fn;k ftlls gjusd flag dh e`R;q gks xbZA Jheku~th xqjizhr flag us Lo;a us gh lnj iqfyl Fkkuk guqekux<+ taD"ku esa gjusd flag dh xqe"kqnxh ntZ djok nh rkfd ml ij dksbZ "kd u djsA (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (14 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] vr% izkFkZuk i= is"k dj fuosnu gS fd vki xqjizhr flag mQZ xksih o dkyqjke iq= jkepUnz ds fo:) gR;k dk eqdnek ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgha djsaA vkidh vfr d`ik gksxhA"
From the sequence of events, which we have narrated after analysing the evidence of Nikka Singh (P.W. 1) and Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2), the witnesses of the so called extra judicial confession, it becomes clear that the body of Harnek Singh was identified by the relatives on 05.07.2013. It was handed over to the relatives on the same day and the FIR came to be registered after the cremation. In that very sequence after lodging of the FIR, a Panchayat was convened in the late hours, where for the first time, Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi allegedly confessed that he and Kalu had killed Harnek Singh by throwing him into the canal. A perusal of the typed report indicates that even before the so called extra judicial confession had been made by the accused Gurpreet, aspersions were made in the written report (Ex.P/11) that Kalu and Gurpreet took Harnek Singh with them on the motorcycle to the Sardul Branch Canal and pushed him into it. As before the so called extra-judicial confession being made, neither the first informant Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 3) nor Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2) had any inkling regarding the manner in which, Harnek Singh died, the detailed narration of such facts in the FIR clearly makes it apparent that the family members conferred with each other to create this story and thereafter the theory of extra judicial confession was concocted so as to implicate the accused Gurpreet Singh for (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (15 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] the death of Harnek Singh. There is another grave contradiction regarding the theory of extra judicial confession. Nikka Singh (P.W. 1) also stated that Gurpreet Singh confessed before the Panchayat that he had thrown the deceased into the canal. The Panchayat was held after the last rites had been performed. However, in cross examination, Nikka Singh (P.W. 1) admitted that the funeral took place at about 11-11:15 a.m. and immediately thereafter, he took his family members to his village. He also admitted that whatever statement he had given, was made on the instruction of his brother-in-law Mahendra Singh (P.W.2), who also gave evidence of the so called extra judicial confession. Mahendra Singh admitted in cross-examination that he could not say as to when Gurpreet Singh made the so called extra judicial confession. If the sequence of events as narrated above is seen, apparently, the evidence of extra judicial confession is nothing, but a piece of fabrication. It is manifest that Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2) (who had an eye on the properties of Harnek Singh) created a totally fictitious story regarding the sequence of events leading to the death of Harnek Singh. The details were crafted by Mahendra Singh in tyeped report (Ex.P/11) and allegation of murder was thrust down upon the accused Gurpreet Singh by way of the extra judicial confession.
Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 3) admitted in her cross examination (supra) that the Panchayat took place at her (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (16 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] house in the evening after the funeral and there the accused Gurpreet Singh was threatened and was coerced, whereafter he made the extra judicial confession. Therefore, also, the evidence of extra judicial confession is unreliable because even if, it is assumed for the argument's sake that any such extra judicial confession was made, then also, the same was extracted under threat, duress and coercion.
That apart, so far as the accused appellant Kalu Ram is concerned, he cannot be held guilty on the strength of extra judicial confession made by the accused Gurpreet Singh. Reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme Court Judgment Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184.
In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove even a single of the so-called three incriminating circumstances, i.e. (i) motive, (ii) last seen and (iii) extra judicial confession, so as to seek affirmation of the impugned judgment and for sustaining the conviction of the accused- appellants. The impugned judgment is based on a perfunctory appreciation of evidence and the findings recorded therein are sheerly conjectural in nature. Hence, the same cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be, and is hereby, allowed. The impugned judgment dated 04.04.2016 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM) (17 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016] Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.63/2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The appellant Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi S/o Balvinder Singh shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The appellant Kalu Ram S/o Ram Chandra is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.
However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, each of the appellants is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment, on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 09:00:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)