BALWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 09-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BALWINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
NOVEMBER 9, 1995 
B 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 186()-Secti<ms 302 and 201-Conviction for of-
fence under-Legality of-No direct evidence-circumstantial evidence-Not 
·i 
established-Delay of 5 days in lodging FIR-Conviction not legally sus-
C tainable. 
D 
E 
F 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 
Evidence-Murder case-circumstantial evidence-conviction based 
on-Sustainability. 
Extra Judicial Confession-Weak type of evidence--lndependent cor-
roboration required to rely upon it. 
The appellant was convicted for offences u/ss 302/201 Indian Penal 
Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000. 
The prosecution ca~_was that the appellant and his mother conspired to 
put an end to the life of his two daughters R & P aged about 7 years and 
2 1/2 years and the appellant took away both the daughters stating to his 
wife that he would return only after killing them. The dead body of one 
daughter R was recovered from a canal. The other daughter, however, was 
not found either dea~ or alive. During the investigation the police took into 
possession some bones and bangles from the place where the dead body 
was cremated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by the appellant. 
Appellant and his mother were charged for an offence under Section 120-B 
IPC, for conspiring to commit the murder of R & P. The appellant was 
also charged for an offence u/s 302/201 IPC for committing the murder of 
G his daughter and cremating her dead body to screen himself from the 
offence. He was also charged for an offence u/s. 302 IPC for the murder 
of his second daughter P. The Trial Court found that the charge of 
conspiracy u/s 120-B was not established and consequently both the appel-
lant and his mother were acquitted of the said charge. The Court held that 
H the charge against the appellant for an offence u/s. 302 for committing the 
10 
BALWINDERSINGH v. STATE 
11 
--- ' 
. murder of P had also not been established and therefore acquitted the A 
•• 
·~ 
; 
appellant of the said charge while convicting and sentencing him for the 
offences u/s 302/201 for the murder of R. 
This appeal u/s 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) 
Act, 1984, had been filed against the judgment of his conviction and 
sentence. 
The appellant denied the prosecution allegation and stated that he 
had been falsely implicated. There was no direct evidence in the case and 
B 
the prosecution relied upon the circumstantial evidence to connect the 
appellant with the crime. The circumstances relied on were the evidence of C 
'last seen together' based on the evidence of PW2, PW4 and PWS; extra 
judicial confession made by the appellant to PW-3; the recovery of dead 
body of R from the canal and its claim by the appellant and disclosure 
statement made by the appellant leading to the recovery of bones of a child 
from the place where the appellant had cremated the dead body of R. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is now well 
settled that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be 
drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive E 
in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of 
events must be established beyond a reasonable doubt and the established 
circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of 
the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on 
circumstantial evidence the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger 
of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful F 
to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, howsoever 
strong they may be, to take the place of proof. [16-H; 17-A-B] 
1.2. In the instant case none of the four circumstances relied upon by 
the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime had been estab-
G 
lished by the prosecution. The Trial Court was not justified in convicting 
the appellant for the offence u/s 302/201. PW-2, wife of the appellant 
deposed about the quarrels between her on the one side and the appellant 
and his mother on the other side on account of the birth of the daughters 
only. She stated that the appellant and his mother conspired to do away 
with her two daughters because they considered the birth of the female to H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.