LexKULVINDER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2011] 4 S.C.R. 817 KULVINDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 916 of 2005) APRIL 11, 2011 [P SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] PENAL CODE 1960: A B s. 302134 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - c Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by trial court - Affirmed by High Court - HELD: In the facts and circumstances of the case, motive proved distinctly - Further, recovery of weapon at the. instance of the accused, the medical report, both the accused seen at the place of incident 0 immediately before the incident and the victim reaching there shortly thereafter, accused seen running from the place of occurrence, extra-judicial confession by the accused, all complete the chain of circumstances pointing out to the guilt of the accused - There is no cogent reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the two courts below - Criminal law - E Motive - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Prosecution case close to the circumstances of the accused and the deceased being last seen together- Extra-judicial confession. The appellants (A-1 and A-2) were prosecuted for F causing the death of one 'AD', the son of PW-2. The prosecution case was that when at about 7 P .M. on 9.10.1997, PW-2 was going to his fields in order to keep watch on the crop and relieve his son 'AD', on the way he saw the two appellants at the tubewell of one 'SR'. PW- G 2 after reaching his fields, relieved his son. On the following morning at about 6. A.M., dead body of 'AD' was found lying near the paddy field. PW-11, went to lodge the FIR. Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-14) conducted the 817 H 818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 4 S.C.R. A investigation. PW-2, told him that about 8-10 days before he saw A-2 grappling with his son, 'AD' and when asked A-2 disclosed that 'AD' was teasing his sister and wife. On 13.10.1997 PW-10 produced the accused before PW- 14 and told him that they made extra-judicial confession B before him about killing of 'AD'. The trial court convicted the accused u/s 302 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The courts below have examined the entire evidence on record and reached the conclusion that chain of circumstances stood completed and all the circumstances pointed towards the guilt of the accused. D Such findings stand fully substantiated by the depositions of the witnesses in the court. [para 6] [828- C-D] 1.2 PW.2, the father of deceased deposed that about E 8-10 days prior to the incident while he was returning home with his son, he saw A-2 playing Kabaddi with his son 'AD' and suddenly they started quarreling with each other and on being asked A-2 told him that 'AD' was teasing his sister and wife though the latter protested and F told him that he was telling a lie. The statement of PW.2 in respect' of motive also gets corroborated by the statement of PW.13, an independent witness to the extent that a month prior to the murder, A-2 made a complaint to 2-3 persons about 'AD' teasing his sister. The statement of PW.13 has been scrutinised by both the G courts below and had been found trustworthy. Thus, it stood established that A-2 has been harbouring in his mind the suspicion that deceased was teasing his sister and wife. If the finding recorded by the courts below on the issue of motive is examined in the light of the law laid H • KULVINDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 819 down by this Court, no fault can be found with the A same.[Para 6 and 8). [828-E-H; 829~A-B; E-F] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal & Ors., 2008 (11 ) SCR 1048 = (2008) 16 SCC 73, Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police, 2009 (13 ) SCR 367=(2009) 9 8 SCC 152; Babu v. State of Kera/a, 2010(9) SCR 239=(2010) 9 SCC 189; and Bipin Kumar Monda/ v. State of West Bengal, 2010(8) SCR 1036=AIR 2010 SC 3638 • relied on. 1.3 The offence was committed in the evening of 9.10.1997 and in respect of the same, an FIR was lodged C on 10.10.1997 and the extra-judicial confession has been made on 13.10.1997. Thus, for three days, the appellants remained wanted in the case. [para 6) [828-D-E] 1.4 On the issue of extra-judicial confession, PW.10 o has deposed that he was the Ex-Sarpanch and both the accused approached him on 13.10.1997 and disclosed that they had committed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.