ROOP SINGH ALIAS RUPA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). The co-accused persons who were similarly convicted were acquitted by the High Court.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Jarnail Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his wife Nasib Kaur immigrated to Canada about 12 years earlier but had both returned to Kotla about two months before Jarnail Singhs murder on April 10, 2001. Pala Singh (PW 7) was deceaseds brother in law being the husband of Nasib Kaurs sister. He also be longed to Kotla. Jarnail Singh lived in his house in the fields, about half a kilometre from the village, on the passage leading to Baghapurana. According to Pala Singh, he and Jarnail Singh used to sleep at night at Jarnail Singhs farm house while Nasib Kaur would sleep with her sister in Pala Singhs house. On the evening of April 10, 2001 Nasib Kaur and Pala Singhs son Darshan Singh had gone to visit Jarnail Singhs sister in Bukhanwala. Pala Singhs grand son Jaswant Singh had taken food for Jarnail Singh to his house at about 7.30 P.M. But Jarnail Singh was not there. Later at about 9 P.M. Gurnam Singh (PW 5) came to Pala Singh and told him that someone had inflicted injuries on Jarnail Singh. Gurnam Singh had learnt about this from Assa Singh, who was employed as a guard at Jarnail Singhs house. Pala Singh alongwith Lambardar Gurmit Singh of the village went to Jarnail Singhs house and found Jarnail Singhs dead body lying on a cot. Assa Singh told Pala Singh that Jarnail Singh had come home at about 8 P.M. on a scooter and about half an hour later Jarnail Singh had come to him and told him that he had been stabbed. Pala Singh went to the courtyard and saw Jarnail Singhs chappals lying there and a trail of blood from the courtyard to Assa Singhs cot where Jarnail Singhs dead body lay. Pala Singh immediately went to Bukanwala to fetch Nasib Kaur and his son. According to Pala Singh, Jarnail Singh was fond of drinking and would indulge even in this habit during day time. The matter was reported by Pala Singh to Inspector Joginder Singh and his state ment was recorded by the Investigating officer at Rajeana bus stand at 6 A.M. on April 11, 2001. The statement was sent to the Police Station, Baghapurana, and on its basis F.I.R. was registered at 6.30 A.M. under Section 302 IPC. Special report of the case was received by Judicial Magistrate, Moga at 10 A.M. on the same day. Immediately thereafter Inspector Joginder Singh (PW 19) set out for the spot, which was inspected whereafter inquest report was prepared in the presence of Ajaib Singh and Lambardar Gurmit Singh. The statements of these two witnesses were also incorporated in the inquest report. After completion of the inquest proceedings, the dead body of Jarnail Singh was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Navraj Singh (PW4, Civil Hospital, Moga at 12.45 PM. After sending the dead body for post-mortem examination, Inspector Joginder Singh continued his investigation at the spot. He lifted bloodstained earth from the spot, blood stained quilt, mattress and bed sheet were also taken into possession from the cot on which Jarnail Singhs dead body was lying. The Investigating officer had actually cut the blood stained portions of the above items before taking them separately into possession. A bottle containing 100 ml of liquor, which was lying up stairs, was also recovered and taken into possession. Three foot prints moulds were prepared of the foot prints found at the spot. One of these was of a right shoe and the other two were of left bare feet. Moulds were separately taken into possession. A pair of chappals was also picked up from the spot. The site plan of the place of the occurrence was prepared. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and since the accused persons abjured guilt, they faced trial. The trial court, as noted above, directed con viction and imposed sentence. According to the trial court the case rested on circum stantial evidence and four factors weighed with the trial court to record conviction. They were (a) finding of the left foot print of the appellant on the spot of occurrence, (b) finger print on the bottle of liquor which was found near the place of occurrence matched with the right index finger of the appellant, (3) there was extra judicial confession before PWs 2 and 4 evidence of Wazir Singh (PW3) having seen all the three accused persons together. The High Court did not accept the conclusions of the trial court relating to the relevance of the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. The High Court found the same was not credible and cogent. However, relying on the other two circumstances, the High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant while directing acquittal of the co-accused persons. The High Court noted that the chain of the circumstances was not complete so far as 6 PWs 2 and 3 are concerned, but it is complete so far as the present appellant is concerned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the High Court are based on surmises and conjectures and having held that the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 so far as the alleged confession, or to have seen the accused persons altogether, to be unreliable, should not have directed conviction.