Sukhdev Singh vs State of Punjab

M. R. Sharma, J. (Oral)

This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 17.3.83 order dated March 19, 1983, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby he convicted the appellant under S. 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. He was also awarded a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The dead body of Sangha Singh deceased was found lying on the road side near a culvert at about 10.30 P.M. on 6.10.1981. There upon Jagdev Singh P.W.6 went to Police Station, Sunam, and lodged the report Ex. PD at 2 AM on 7.10.1981, whereupon a case under section 302, I.P.C. was registered.

The prosecution relied upon an alleged extrajudicial confession said to have been made by Sukhdev Singh appellant before Sarpanch Niranjan Singh P.W.3 and the statement of Sukha Singh P.W.2 and on the statement of Sukha Singh P.W.2 who was an associate of the appellant and had turned approver at the stage of the trial. This evidence was accepted by the learned trial Judge for convicting and sentencing the appellant as earlier.

In this appeal by the convict, we have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel.

After a careful consideration of the entire evidence, we are inclined to take the view that there is scope for giving benefit of doubt to the appellant.

The motive for crime suggested is that the deceased was having illicit liaison with Smt. Sukho, sister of the appellant, Sukha Singh PW2 when crossexamined admitted that this liaison related to a period which was 15 years back. The witness could not deny the suggestion that Smt. Sukho had atleast 3 or 4 children. If inspite of this relationship no untoward incident happened during this long period, it is difficult for us to come to the conclusion that the appellant had any motive to commit this crime.

The appellant was arrested on 9.11.1958. It is said that when questioned by the Investigation Officer on 11.11.1981 he made a statement pursuant to which he got recovered watch P.5, ring Ex.P.6 and kulhari Ex.P.1 The learned trial Judge has disbelieved these recoveries. We might further add that there is no mention in the first information report that at the time when the deceased had left his residence he was wearing ring Ex.P6 and watch Ex.P.5. We are inclined to take the view that these articles were taken by the police officer during the course of investigation in order to bolster up the case against the appellant. The alleged extra judicial confession made before Naranjan Singh P.W.3, appears to be wholly natural. In the first place the murder went undetected for period of over one month. The police had no information whatsoever about the real accused person. In this situation it is rather difficult for us to believe that the appellant all of a sudden evinced a desire to make an extrajudicial confession. According to Sukha Singh PW2, he gave a bang blow on the shoulder of the deceased. This part of the prosecution story as well as the fact that the deceased was wearing watch Ex.P5 and ring Ex. P.6 do not appear in the confess on made by the appellant before Niranjan Singh PW 3, started that Sukhdev Singh appellant told him that both of them (the appellant and Sukha Singh PW2) had committed this murder, and when he put the similar question to Sukha Singh P.W.2 he also admitted this fact. The witness appears to have been tutored to make his statement in such a manner that neither of the two accused persons could escape being prosecuted for the crime. The statement of the approver suffers from additional infirmity inasmuch as he has assigned almost an insignificant role to himself.

For all the reasons mentioned above, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the learned trial Judge. The case against the appellant is highly doubtful. We accordingly give him the benefit of doubt allow his appeal and order that he be acquitted of the charge.