KULWINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 05-12-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KULWINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF PUNJAB 
DECEMBER 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; s. 302 
Murder-Accused persons hiring criminals to eliminate a relative-
Criminals so hired shot him dead-Trial Court found all the accused persons C 
except one guilty of committing murder and sentenced them to imprisonment 
for life-Appeal dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Statements of 
PW3 disclosing names of hired criminals corroborated on material particulars 
by PW 4, first informant-From recovery of pistols and empty cartridge from 
the spot, it could not definitely be ascertained that they were fired from the D 
pistols so recovered and used by the criminals-But it would not lead to the 
conclusion that they had not committed the crime-Fight between accused 
and the deceased proved-Motive of accused to eliminate· deceased could 
not be said to be wholly non-existent in the facts and circumstances of the 
case-Both the Courts below relied on the statement of PW7, an independent E 
witness-No reasons found to differ with them-Accused Nos. I and 2 and 
hired criminals, accused Nos. 3 and 4 know each other-Hired criminals, 
accused-appellant and others visiting accused nos. I and 2 on several 
occasions and they must have undertaken to kill the deceased for greed of 
money-Payment of money to hired criminals by accused nos. I and 2 not 
necessary to be proved as it was within their special knowledge-Hence, F 
impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. 
Evidence: 
Extra-judicial confession-Evidentiary value-Discussed. 
G 
On the fateful day, when the informant and his father were returning 
back on foot to their village, two persons opened fire hitting his father on his 
back, who fell down. The informant raised an alarm and the accused fled away. 
The informant could not identify them immediately but in the FIR he claimed 
that he would be able to do so. In the First Information Report itself needle of H 
73 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 
A suspicion was pointed towards accused nos. 1 and 2 and their father as they 
had land dispute with the deceased. The deceased was taken to hospital where 
he succumbed to the injuries. The statements of witnesses were recorded on 
the same day. They had named the assailants, the appellant being one of them. 
The deceased was said to have been adopted by one 'C'. The lands owned by 
B 'C' had been partitioned, part of which was transferred to accused nos. 1 and 
2, sons-in-law of'C'. They bore grudge against the deceased. A quarrel took 
place among them. Allegedly, the deceased assaulted one of the accused as a 
result whereof his arm was fractured. According to PW-7, Accused nos. 1, 
2 and 3 stated that they had hired accused-appellant No.I and others to kill 
c 
the deceased and m order of the deceased was committed by them. Accused 
persons came to the house of PW-7 and made a statement that owing to greed 
of money, they had murdered the deceased and they may be taken to the police. 
They were taken in custody. Recoveries were made pursuant to the information 
furnished by the appellant and the other. The country-made pistols so 
recovered were sent for examination before the Forensic Science Laboratory. 
D No definite opinion could be given regarding firing of the vital shot from the 
said weapons due to lack of sufficient individual characteristic obtaining 
marks therein. Relying on or on the basis of the evidences brought on record 
by the prosecution and post-mortem report, the trial Court convicted the 
appellant and other accused persons under Section 302 of the Indian Penal 
E 
Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced them to suffer 
imprisonment for life, however, one of the accused was acquitted. Appeals 
thereagainst were preferred by convicted accused before the High Court. A 
criminal revision application was also filed by the informant against the order 
of acquittal of one of the accused. By reason of the impugned judgment, the 
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the appeals and revision 
F petition. Hence the present appeal by one of the convicts. 
Accused-appellant contended that having regard to the fact that the 
appellant was not named in the First Information Report, his participation in 
the commission of the offence is doubtful; that no money was proved to have 
passed hands; and that there was no reason as to why for a period of about 11 
G days, the appellant co

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