MAKHAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 613 · Decided: 02-07-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAKHAN SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
JULY 2 7, 1988 
[G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: ss. 201 & 302-Murder-Conviction 
based on circumstancial evidence-Held, charge not proved beyond 
doubt. 
Evidence Act, 1872: ss. 24 & 27: Extrajudicial confession-No 
corroborative evidence-Held, very weak piece of evidence-Dead 
bodies-Recovery of from open field-Held, exclusive knowledge can­
not be attributed to the accused-Consequently evidence under s. 27 
cannot be a circumstance against the accused. 
The appellant was convicted under s. 302 read with s; 201 tPC for 
having committed the murder of his father and son. It was alleged, as 
motive for offence, that the appellant used to quarrel with bis father as 
the latter wanted to transfer bis land in the name or his grandson, who 
used to live with him. PW. 2 had deposed that a day prior to Amawasya 
of Chet 1985 at about S p.m. he had seen the two deceased persons at 
the Gurdwara when appellant went there and told them that be had 
arranged for their visit to Amritsar, through the car seva truck coming 
that evening, to take the holy bath; He had met the appellant that very 
night at about 10 p.m. on bis way to the fields and enquired or him why 
he too did not go to Amritsar. And, that when he did not see the 
deceased for sometime he felt suspicious and lodged a report with the 
police on 8th August, 1985, which became the FIR. On 13th August, 
1985 the appellant is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession 
to PW. 3, his sister's husband, who is said to have produced him before 
the police. On 15th August, 1985 a memorandum under s. 27 of the 
Evidence Act was recorded by the investigating officer at the instance of 
the appellant and later dead bodies were recovered from field and 
identified. The belongings of the deceased were recovered froqt the 
Kotba in the fields, where the deceased used to reside, at the instance of 
the appellant. 
Based on this evidence the appellant 7 convicted and sentenced 
to death by the Sessions Court. That order was upheld by the High 
Court. 
613 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
614 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD: The charge against the appellant cannot be ·said to have 
been proved beyond doubt. His conviction, therefore, cannot be 
sustained. [620] 
Extra-judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and is 
hardly of any consequence. PW. 3 says that the appellant told him that 
as the police was after him he.had come and confessed the fact .so that he 
might not be nnnecessarlly'harassed. There is nothing to indicate that 
this witness was a person having influence with the police or a person or 
some status to protect the appellant from harassment .. There is no other 
cor-roborative evidence about the extra-judicial confession. [618D-E] 
. ' 
; 
. 
-
' 
':~ 
,.\ 
As regards the motive, the will was.executed on 31st December, 
1984 and it is a figment of'imagination'"that the murder was committed 
apprehending that the will was likely' to be changed. There is alSo no 
evidence to indicate that appellant was not having good relations with 
his father or that there was ever .any trouble . between father and the 
son.'[6t8F-G] 
' 
. 
l 
The evidence as to last seen also cannot be considered as a piece of 
circumstantial evidence against the appellant. The case of the appellant 
was that his brother-in-law, Manjit Singh, had taken the deceased to his 
place on the pretext that appellant's sister ·was not well. There is 
no evidence led by the prosecution to negative this stand, May be, 
PW. 2 saw them with the appellant at the Gurdwara' on the Amawiisaya 
. day in Chet but it is significant that no othe~ person c0nnected with 
the deceased has been produced to s11ggest that be was ·not' seen there-
after. [619B-C] 
' .. 
• 
.. 
As regards the recovery of dead bodies, the investigation officer 
himself admitted that after recording the statement of PW. 3 he knew 
that the bodies were buried in the field but be felt that information was 
not sufficient. The said field is an open place ·surrounded by other 
fields. It cannot be said that any one else could not have known about 
G 
the bodies being buried there. Since exclusive knowledge to the appel-
lant cannot be attributed, the evidence under s. 27 of the Evidence Act 
also cannot be said to be a circumstance against the appellant. [619E-G] 
According to the medical opinio

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