JAGROOP SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2012] 7 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 20-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2012] 7 S.C.R. 91 
JAGROOP SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2008) 
JULY 20, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw ss.34 and 201 - Murder -
Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Three accused -
Conviction of accused-appellant by courts below -
Justification of - Held: Justified - Deceased was last seen with 
the accused persons - Appellant made extra-judicial 
confession before PW14 admitting his guilt -
The 
confessional statement was totally voluntary and by no 
means tainted - Weapon used in the crime, spade, was 
recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by the 
appellant - Disclosure statement was signed by PW14 and 
another witness - Procedure followed for discovery was 
absolutely in accord with law - Appellant gave no explanation 
as to how human blood could be found on the spade, which 
is used for agriculture - No substantial reason to disbelieve 
the disclosure statement and the recovery of the spade -
Doctor who had conducted the post mortem had clearly 
opined that injuries on the person of the deceased could be 
caused by the blade of the spade and the said opinion went 
unrebutted - Though incriminating circumstances pointing to 
the guilt of the appellant had been put to him, yet he could 
not give any explanation u/s.313 CrPC except choosing the 
mode of denial - No trace of doubt that all the circumstances 
completed the chain and singularly pointed to the guilt of the 
accused persons. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 24, 25 and 26 - Extra judicial 
confession - Appreciation of - Held: Extra-judicial confession, 
if true and voluntary, can be relied upon by the court to 
91 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
92 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
convict the accused for commission of the crim~ alleged -
Despite inherent weakness of extra-judicial confession as an 
item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such 
confession was made before a person who has no reason to 
state falsely and his evidence is credible - Corroboration of 
B such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. 
In a case concerning the death of the 10 year old son 
of PWB, the trial court came to the conclusion that the 
death was homicidal in nature; that the deceased was 
last seen with the accused persons; that the accused had 
C made extra-judicial confessions admitting the guilt; that 
the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the 
field of the father of accused-appellant; that the weapon 
used in the crime was recovered on the basis of the 
disclosure statement made by accused-appellant; that as 
D per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the 
weapon used, spade, was found stained with human 
blood; and that the doctor who had conducted the post 
mortem had clearly stated that the injuries found on the 
body of the deceased could be caused by the seized 
E weapon. On the aforesaid basis, the trial court came to 
hold that the prosecution had been able to prove the case 
against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt 
and accordingly convicted the accused-appellant and co-
accused 'BS' under Sections 302 read with Section 34 
F and 201 of IPC and sentenced them to rigorous 
imprisonment for life. In appeal, the High Court concurred 
with the view expressed by the trial court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant challenged his 
G conviction inter alia on the grounds: - (a) that the 
circumstances which weighed with the lower Courts, 
namely, last seen with the deceased, extra-judicial 
confession made by the accused before PW2, and PW14, 
and recovery of spade and body of the deceased near 
H the field of the father of the accused-appellant at his 
JAGROOP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
93 
instance were unacceptable inasmuch as the testimony A 
of witnesses were replete with improvement, 
embellishment and contradiction; (b) that the time gap 
between the point of time when the accused was last 
seen with the deceased and when the deceased was 
found dead was of long duration and, therefore, the said 
B 
circumstance was liable to be ignored; (c) that the 
reliance on extra-judicial confession before PW2 and 
PW14 was unacceptable inasmuch as the confession 
was made after 18 days which made it absolutely dented; 
there was no earthly reason that the appellant would c 
confess before PW2, since there was prior enmity 
between PW8 and the appellant and PW2, is a close 
relation of PW8 and that apart, there were improv

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