SUCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration before us in this appeal is whether in a case of circumstantial evidence, where the accused fails to render a probable explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C for short), the Court would be justified in holding the accused guilty with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused while impugning the judgment under appeal, contended that it was a case of no evidence. Thus, even the principle of controlling conviction in cases of circumstantial evidence would not be applicable. According to him, all the witnesses who appeared in the Court turned hostile, the material witnesses including Makhan Singh before whom the accused is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession was not examined. The acquittal of co-accused Jeet Singh rendered the prosecution case entirely baseless. As such the appellant is also entitled to the benefit of doubt.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution can be noticed as recorded in the FIR itself. FIR Ex. PI/B was recorded at 3.05 PM on 7th August, 1998 in relation to an occurrence that took place in the intervening night of 6/7.8.198. The FIR was registered on the statement of Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, sister of the deceased for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Sucha Singh appellant and Jeet Singh his brother. Statement of complaint Jaswinder Kaur PW-1 reads as under :-