LexBHALINDER SINGH @ RAJU versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHALINDER SINGH @ RAJU A v. STATE OF PUNJAB DECEMBER 16, 1993 [DR. AS. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) B Indian Penal Code 1860-S.302-qrcumstantial evidenc~Apprecia- tion of~eld: must lead only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should not be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused-The prosecution must establish its case which must stand on its own legs-The C weakness of the defence cannot be used as a circumstance in favour of the. prosecution. Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-S.313-A false explanation given by the accused about his innocence cannot be used against the accused unless put to him in his statement recorded under S.313 of the Criminal Procedure D Code. The prosecution alleged that the deceased has gone out with the accused/appellants one evening in the presence of the father of the deceased. One H also saw the Appellant and the deceased proceeding E together towards the Bhakra Canal. G also saw the Accused and the deceased taking liquor together later. D also saw the accused and the deceased sitting on the bank of Bhakra Canal. Five days later an FIR about the missing deceased was lodged by the father of the deceased. The body of the deceased was recovered from the Bhakra Canal. The appe_ llant was traced only two days after the discovery of the body and is said to have F' made a disclosure statement leading to certain recovery: He was also said to have made an extra judicial confession to the Sarpanch of the village~ On the basis of the circumstantial evidence the appellant was convicted by the trial court to imprisonment for life and the High Court affirmed the sentence. Hence this appeal. G Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The prosecution was unable to explain how the Police started the search for the appellant on 9.7.1986 when there was no infor· mation lodged with the Police prior to 13·7·1986 about the absence of the H 989 990 SUPREME COU.RT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R~ A deceased. Investigation is tainted as the investigating Officer has not come out with all the facts and the evidence ,on record concealed more than it revealed. (992-H & 993-C) 2. The extra judicial confession to the Sarpanch is also unreliable in view of the admitted enmity of the sarpanch with the family of the accused. B . [999-E-F] 3. The recovery of the shoes has not been established and the Investigating Officer appears to have fabricated evidence and created false Clues. (994-D] C 4.The false explanation given. by the accused could not be used against him because it was not put to him in his statement recorded under S.313 Criminal Procedure Code. (994-G] 5. The prosecution could not seek conviction on the weakness of the defence ca.se but had to establish its own case capable of standing on its D own legs. (994-GJ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 635 of1993 . . E From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.1990 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Crl. Appeal No. 284-DB of 1988. Uijagar Singh, A.O. Sikri and Ms. Naresh Bakshi for the Appellant. Ranbir Yadav and R.S. Suri for the Respondent. F The following Order of this Court was delivered : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Sections 302/364/201 G l.P.C. The appellant alongwith Kulwant Singh, Sinder Singh and Piara Singh were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala for the af 9resaid . · . , offeil~. By judgment dated 23rd July,. 1988 the appellant Was convicted, and sentenced to serve life imprisonment arid a fine of Rs. 2,000 under H Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced •· B. SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 991 to 1 year rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 364 IPC, he was sentenced A to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default · to suffer 1 year rigorous imprisonment. For the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently while the three co-accused were acquitted. No B appeal was filed in the High Court against the acquittal of the three co-accused. The appellant's appeal before the High Court against his conviction and sentence failed. There is no eye-witness in this case.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.