IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Appeal No. 77-DB of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: September 14, 2010 Gurmukh Singh …..Appellant versus The State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the appellant Ms.Manjari Nehru Kaul, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent .. RAJAN GUPTA , J. This appeal emanates from judgment of conviction dated 2.11.2006 and order of sentence dated 3.11.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ropar, whereby appellant- Gurmukh Singh was found guilty of an offence under section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default whereof to further undergo R.I. for three months. Brief factual background of the case is that complainant Gulzar Singh lodged a complaint with the police on 10.5.2000 stating therein that he suspected that Gurmukh Singh had killed his son after abducting him. He stated that on 7.5.2000 at about 6.00 P.M. Gurmukh Singh came to his house and enquired about his son Surinder Singh. Not finding him there, he went away, but came back at 7.00 P.M. Crl.Appeal No. 77-DB of 2007 - 2 - again. He (Gurmukh Singh) stated that he had some urgent work with Surinder Singh and thus, took him along on his scooter (Bajaj Chetak bearing No.PB-43-3071). Thereafter, Surinder Singh (deceased) did not come back till 11.30 P.M. He thus went to place of Gurmukh Singh's in-law. He found Gurmukh Singh there. He told the complainant that Surinder Singh had dropped him near village Malikpur and had taken his scooter with him. After this, the complainant searched for his son, but could not find him. He, thus, lodged the instant complaint stating therein that he was sure that his son had been killed by Gurmukh Singh after being abducted. In the report, he also stated the motive of the crime as suspicion in mind of Gurmukh Singh about illicit relations of Surinder Singh with his wife. Pursuant to this complaint, an investigation ensued. The accused made an extra-judicial confession to one Parkash Singh on 12.5.2000. He even showed the place of occurrence to said person. As a result, blood-stained samples of earth were recovered from the said place and were sent for forensic examination. Even the dead body of Surinder Singh was found floating in the canal on 15.5.2000. The accused was arrested on 26.5.2000 and was subjected to interrogation. On his disclosure statement, a knife was recovered which is stated to have been used in the crime. On receipt of Chemical Examiner's report, other formalities were completed and challan was presented before the court of competent jurisdiction. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in respect of its case. The prosecution Crl.Appeal No. 77-DB of 2007 - 3 - also tendered into evidence report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PBB and report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PCC. Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. However, he denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The defence also examined two witnesses in support of its pleas. After considering the entire evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant-Gurmukh Singh beyond a shadow of doubt and sentenced him for offence under section 302 IPC. Aggrieved, the convict-appellant has preferred the present appeal before this court. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel and gone through the entire record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the accused was taken in illegal custody on 10.5.2000 and thus, there was no possibility of his having made an extra- judicial confession on 12.5.2000 before witness-Parkash Singh (PW18). He submits that due to the fact that appellant was taken in custody on 10.5.2000, a bail application was also moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar. The same was, however, dismissed. He has further submitted that evidence available before the court for convicting the appellant was flimsy. He submits that merely on the basis of extra-judicial confession allegedly made before PW18-Parkash Singh, a finding of guilt has been recorded against Gurmukh Singh. Crl.Appeal No. 77-DB of 2007 - 4 - Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently contended that the investigating agency resorted to all possible investigative procedures including forensic methods before coming to a conclusion about the guilt of Gurmukh Singh, convict-appellant. He submits that the chain of events is complete in view of the entire circumstances, clear-cut motive, last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, disclosure statement and corroboration thereof. It is evident that there is evidence on record to show that on 7.5.2000 deceased Surinder Singh was seen in the company of Gurmukh Singh. Apart from father of the deceased, who stepped into witness box as PW2, an independent witness deposed regarding this fact. PW8-Daljit Singh who is a medical practitioner (RMP) in the area, stated that on 7.5.2000 while he was returning from his clinic in village Allowal, he stopped at petrol-pump at Ahmedpur (Alipur) at about 8.15 P.M. There Gurmukh Singh met him alongwith deceased Surinder Singh. He enquired from them as to where they were going. Surinder Singh replied that he was going to give a party due to his recent engagement. Thereafter, they went towards village Ghanauli. It was later that this witness came to know that Surinder Singh had died. PW8-Daljit Singh was cross-examined at length by the defence, but his testimony could not be dislodged. This testimony of Daljit Singh lends credence to the version given by the parents of the deceased that in the evening of 7.5.2000, the deceased was taken away by accused Gurmukh Singh on his scooter. This apart, the Crl.Appeal No. 77-DB of 2007 - 5 - extra-judicial confession made before PW18-Parkash Singh by the appellant also refers deceased accompanying the accused in the evening of 7.5.2000. Parkash Singh (PW18) before whom the extra-judicial confession was made, stated that appellant had come to him on 12.5.2000 at about 4.00 P.M. and told him that he had taken Surinder Singh alongwith him on the fateful day. At about 9.00 P.M. when they had reached near the bridge of Bhakra Canal in Alipur, he took out a 'kirch'(knife) from the dickey of the scooter and stabbed Surinder Singh in the stomach and threw his scooter in the canal. Other stab wounds were also given to the deceased by the appellant. He thereafter showed the place of occurrence to PW18. Gurmukh Singh also told him that he had killed Surinder Singh as he was having illicit relation with his wife. During investigation weapon of offence was recovered from the house of in-laws of the appellant. The medical evidence showed stab wounds in the stomach and other parts of body of the deceased. The cause of death, as per doctor who stepped into witness box as PW4, was haemorrhage and shock due to stab injuries No.2, 3 and 4, which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The witnesses remained unanimous regarding the motive of commission of crime, it being suspicion in the mind of appellant Gurmukh Singh that deceased Surinder Singh was having illicit relation with his wife. As regards submission of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was taken in custody on 10.5.2000, there is no evidence in respect thereof. The appellant was Crl.Appeal No. 77-DB of 2007 - 6 - arrested on 26.5.2000 by the police. Learned counsel has referred to statement of Ram Singh (DW1) to submit that accused was arrested on 10.5.2000 and an application for bail was moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar for his release. A perusal of order dated 18.5.2000 (Ex.D2) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, however, shows that the application moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate was dismissed on the ground that accused had not been arrested. It is, thus, clear that this argument of learned counsel is without any substance. To buttress this line of argument, learned counsel also referred to cross- examination of PW7-Surjit Kaur (mother of deceased) and submitted that she had clearly stated that she had seen the appellant in the custody of the police on 10.5.2000 and thus, entire story of the appellant having made an extra- judicial confession on 12.5.2000 is made up. However, in view of the order dated 18.5.2000 (Ex.D2) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, there is no room for doubt that appellant was not in custody on 10.5.2000. In fact, another witness PW9-Pritam also stepped into the witness box. The appellant is stated to have made an extra-judicial confession before him on 25.5.2000 narrating the entire manner of commission of crime, motive therefor and modus operendi. The defence could not impeach the credibility of this witness either despite subjecting him to cross- examination. Parminder Singh, another witness produced by the prosecution as PW6, clearly stated in his deposition that he had known about the illicit relation of deceased Crl.Appeal No. 77-DB of 2007 - 7 - with Kamaljit Kaur (wife of appellant) even prior to their marriage. This witness had also seen the accused in the company of the deceased in the evening of the fateful day. Keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances, there can hardly be any doubt that there is strong circumstantial evidence to complete the chain of events. The extra-judicial confession, motive of commission of crime as well as last seen theory have been proved by the prosecution beyond any manner of doubt. The extra-judicial confession was made on 12.5.2000. The body of the deceased was found on 15.5.2000 floating in the canal. It bore number of stab wounds inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon. Daljit Singh (PW8) had seen the appellant with the deceased at about 8.15 P.M. on the fateful day near the petrol pump. Thereafter, the deceased went missing. His dead body was recovered only after the extra-judicial confession was made before Parkash Singh (PW18). The chain of events is, thus, complete. In our considered view, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond doubt. We, thus, find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment rendered by the court below convicting the accused of offence punishable under section 302 IPC. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 14, 2010 (RANJAN GOGOI) pc JUDGE Crl.Appeal No. 77-DB of 2007 - 8 -