KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 25-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

JI( 
KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
APRIL 25, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS, DORAISWAMYRAW AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Ss. 302and120-B/S. 120-B r/w. S. 302-Murder-
Circumstantial evidence-Motive established-No infi1mity in appreciation of 
the evidence-Conviction and sentence by trial Court-Upheld. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-S. 313-Murder-Circumstantial evi-
c 
dence-False expla.iation offered by an uccused-Effect of-Held, provides 
additional or missing link in completing the chain of circumstances. 
Appellants were prosecuted for offences under Ss. 302 and 120-B/S, 
120-B r/w. S. 302 Penal Code. The prosecution case was that 'S' and his 
D 
brother 'M' were staying in different portions of a house along with their 
families. After the death of 'M', his wife viz. appellant No. 4 and daughters 
continued to stay in the said house. Appellant No. 4 developed illicit rela-
tionship with appellant No. 1, a former tenant of 'M'; 'S' objected to the 
said relationship. He was also objecting to appellant No. 4 wanting to sell 
E 
off her portion of property. Consequently, appellants conspired to kill 'S'. 
In pursuance of the said conspiracy, appellant No. 4 took all the family 
members to see Ramleela festival leaving 'S' alone in the house. Appellant 
No. 4 went away from the Ramleela festival for some time. When the family 
members returned home they found 'S' lying in a pool of blood. Trial Court 
on appreciation of evidence, held that circumstantial evidence established 
F 
-""' 
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and convicted and sen-
tenced appellant Nos. 1 & 2 under Ss. 302 and 120-B IPC and appellant 
Nos. 3 and 4 under S. 120-B r/w. 302 IPC. On appeal, High Court confirmed 
the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
G 
HELD : 1. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that accused 
Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had entered into a conspiracy and had murdered 'S'. There 
is no infirmity or fallacy in appreciation of the evidence or the marshalling 
of the facts and circumstances which unerringly lead to a conclusion of 
H 
499 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so far as Appellants 1, 2 and 4 are 
concerned. Thus, conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court on appel-
lants 1, 2 and 4 is sustained. [502-G-H] 
2. Appellant 4 in her statement under S. 313 Cr.P.C. denied that she 
had left the Ramleela function. However, the evidence of witnesses clearly 
establishes that she had left the Ramleela programme. The false answer 
given by Appellant No. 4 provides the additional link or a missing link in 
completing the chain of circumstances. [507-C-D; El 
Swapan Patra v. State of West Benga4 [1999] 9 SCC 242 and State of 
Maharashtra v. Suresh, [2000) 1 SCC 471, relied on. [507-G-H; 508-A] 
3. There is no circumstances or proof which links appellant No. 3 to 
the conspiracy of murder. The deposition of PW 9 that he had seen appel-
lant No. 3 going along with appellant Nos. 1 and 2 towar;ds the house of the 
deceased, by itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt. The only other 
evidence viz. PW 5 had made contradictory statements to the police which 
are substantial, cannot be relied upon. Thus, conviction of appellant No. 3 
under S. 120-B read with S. 302 IPC is set aside. [507-G-H; 508-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 658 
of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.3.98 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B. Cd.A. No. 247 of 1978. 
F 
P.R. Aggarwal, Pramod Dayal and Piyush Sharma for the Appellants. 
G 
H 
Sushi! Kr. Jain, A. Mishra and Ms. Anjali Doshi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 10th 
March, 1997. By the judgment the Appeal of the Appellants against their 
convictions by the Additional Sessions Judge has been confirmed. Appellants 
1 and 2 had been convicted under Sections 302 and 120B l.P.C. Appellants 
3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 120B read with Section 302 l.P.C. 
All of them are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 
K. SINGH v. STATE [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 
501 
One Sohan Singh and his brother Mohan Singh were staying in different 
portion of house at Ward No. 35, Old Abadi, Ganganagar. Both of them had 
practiced as Vaids and were running a medical shop. Sohan Singh was married 
to one Kar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.