DILBAGH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stands convicted for murder of Karamjeet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) by the impugned judgment dated 8th June, 2012 in Sessions Case No. 9/11 arising out of FIR No. 339/2010, P.S. K.N.K. Marg. By order on sentence dated 27th July, 2012, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default/failure to pay fine undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has been granted.

(2.) The impugned judgment/prosecution case primarily relies upon extra judicial confession made by the appellant before father, mother and brother of the deceased Karamjeet, namely Charanjeet Singh (PW3), Surjeet Kaur (PW4) and Paramjeet (PW5). It is claimed that Karpal Singh (PW8) and Surjeet Kaur @ Rita (PW10) were present at that time and had heard the appellant making the confession. Prosecution relies upon the principle of last seen and on the said aspect reference is made to the testimony of Kulwant Singh (PW6).

(3.) Surjeet Kaur @ Rita (PW10) did not substantially support the prosecution case on the extra judicial confession. PW10 accepted that she was/is related to the appellant and had met appellant at about 9.00 PM on 21st October, 2010 outside the house of the deceased after Karamjeet's body was recovered from Haiderpur Nahar. The appellant had requested PW10 to call mother of the deceased Karamjeet and told her that he would pay Rs.2,000/- to them (the parents) as he had quarrelled with Karamjeet. The appellant was in perplexed state. PW10 was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor but denied suggestions on the extra judicial confession. What is apparent from the statement of PW10, is that the appellant had told Surjeet Kaur (PW4) mother of the deceased that he would pay Rs.2,000/- to them as he had quarrelled with the deceased. He neither accepted nor stated that he had murdered or injured the deceased. It is further stated by PW10 that the appellant was in perplexed state or condition at that time i.e. at about 9.00 PM on 21st October, 2010. On the same day at about 5 P.M. body of Karamjeet had been recovered from Haiderpur Nahar. The appellant knew the deceased and was a neighbour, therefore, the assertion that the appellant was perplexed and had offered Rs.2000/- does not appear to be incriminating circumstance individually and by itself.