Crl. Misc. No.929-MA of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.929-MA of 2010 Date of decision:13.10.2010 State of Punjab ...Applicant Versus Gurcharan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. D.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab, for the applicant. JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. 1. The State of Punjab is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur (for short as ``trial Court') acquitting Gurcharan Singh, Jaswant Kaur, Dharam Singh, Manjinder Kaur and Sucha Singh. 2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that Satnam Singh got recorded his statement before ASI Baldev Singh, PW4 to the effect that he came to know about the murder of his father Mahabir Singh on 9.6.2002 at 4.30 p.m. through his brother Baba Balkar Singh, PW5. On suspicion, the complainant requested the police to get the post-mortem conducted on the dead body of Mahabir Singh, so as to know about the cause of death as he (complainant) was in Ludhiana at the time of death of his father. As per post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to Crl. Misc. No.929-MA of 2010 2 poisoning. Then on the basis of report of Chemical Examiner, a complaint was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Batala, which was referred to the police station for registration of the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon the FIR present was lodged. During investigation, the accused were arrested. 3. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 31.3.2010 acquitted the accused/appellants holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused in any way in the murder of Baba Mahabir Singh. 4. Hence, the present application for leave to appeal. 5. The learned State counsel has argued that Jathedar Sukhdev Singh, PW3, has fully supported the case of prosecution. As per his testimony, on 7.8.2002, he had gone to the Gurdwara Dukh Niwaran, where Kulwant Singh, PW7, was also present. All the accused/appellants came there and disclosed the fact of administering poison to the deceased. One of the accused Manjinder Kaur stated before them that she, alongwith accused Sucha Singh had administered poison to Baba Mahabir Singh, the deceased, as they have got a Will executed from him in their favour in order to take care of the property of Baba Mahabir Singh, the deceased. According to him, accused Manjinder Kaur further disclosed before them that Mahabir Singh, the deceased, disowned his sons Balkar Singh, Satnam Singh and Darshan Singh. They had taken Baba Mahabir Singh to Chandigarh Hospital and after getting him discharged from there, they were bringing him Crl. Misc. No.929-MA of 2010 3 back to Batala but on the way, Manjinder Kaur gave medicine to Baba Mahabir Singh due to which he died. The accused Sucha Singh also narrated the same story. The learned State counsel has further submitted that both the accused confessed their guilt before Kulwant Singh, PW3 and Sukhdev Singh, PW7 that they had administered poison to Mahabir Singh and pleaded for being helped. 6. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that as per the statement of PW1 Dr. Paramjit Singh, Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased, the cause of death was due to consuming aluminum phosphide. The learned State counsel has also placed reliance on chemical report, Exhibit PB. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the State. 8. The case of the prosecution revolves around extra-judicial confessions made by the accused/respondentss to Kulwant Singh, PW7 and Jathedar Sukhdev Singh, PW3. 9. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence or eye-witnesses account. The case of the prosecution is primarily based upon the extra judicial confession of the appellants. As per medical record, the cause of death of Baba Mahabir Singh was due to poisoning i.e. by consuming aluminum phosphate, a pesticide. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to the effect that Baba Mahabir Singh, the deceased, was taken to PGI by the accused. In the complaint, no circumstance regarding the death of Baba Mahabir Singh was mentioned except that Crl. Misc. No.929-MA of 2010 4 there is a suspicion in the mind of the complainant that his father died under mysterious circumstances. No name of any accused has been mentioned. The statements of Jathedar Sukhdev Singh, PW3 and Kulwant Singh, PW7 were recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. on 9.6.2002. There is no explanation as to why these two witnesses remained silent for more than one year on the fact that the accused persons made extra judicial confession before them Their silence for such a long period erodes the credibility of their statements. It is significant to note that the accused/respondents had no particular relationship or connection with Jathedar Sukhdev Singh, PW3 and Kulwant Singh, PW7. If the above-referred pieces of evidence are kept aside then there is no other evidence available evidence which may connect or point towards the guilt of the accused even remotely. It is settled law that extra judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and thus, ordinarily cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. In the present case, extra-judicial confession was made before Jathedar Sukhdev Singh, PW3, and Kulwant Singh, PW7, who were neither relations of the accused nor were respectables of the village. However, one of them is a Karinda. So story of making extra- judicial confession does not appeal to the mind. 10. The relations between both the parties were stated to be not cordial. As per record, there is civil litigation pending between the parties and, therefore, Jathedar Sukhdev Singh, PW3, Balkar Singh, PW5, and Kulwant Singh, PW7, had every reason to depose against Crl. Misc. No.929-MA of 2010 5 the accused/respondents. As per the statement of Baba Balkar Singh, PW5, it is made out that he filed the complaint before the court on the basis of suspicion. 11. On the facts discussed above we have no hesitation to hold that reliance should not have been placed on the so-called confessions. 12. Thus, in our opinion, the learned trial Court has come on the above-said conclusion on the basis of appreciation of the prosecution evidence. Therefore, the reasons of acquittal given by learned trial Judge are neither perverse nor unreasonable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 8. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE JUDGE 13.10.2010 mk Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No.