PRITINDER SINGH @ LOVELY versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1033 · Decided: 05-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1033
PRITINDER SINGH @ LOVELY
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(Criminal Appeal No. 1635 of 2010)
JULY 05, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – As per the prosecution,
two days prior to the date of the incident, a dispute allegedly arose
between the deceased-complainant’s brother and their step mother
wherein she allegedly threatened the deceased that he would not
survive – Two days after, the appellants (the step mother along with
the co-accused) came in a car and took the deceased on the pretext
of purchasing shoes, when the complainant was also present in the
house and allegedly noticed that the step mother was carrying her
12 bore double barrel licensed gun in the car – Later, dead body of
the deceased was found bearing two gunshot wounds – The car in
which the appellants and the deceased were travelling was also
found with the gun kept inside, along with the cartridges –
Appellants were convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, IPC and sentenced to
life imprisonment – Correctness of – Held:The present is a case
based on circumstantial evidence – In view of the serious doubt
with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-
judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine
Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect in the prosecution case –
Prosecution failed to prove thecase beyond reasonable doubt –
Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt – Judgment of the High Court
and the Trial Court quashed and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 –
s.302 r/w s.34.
Criminal Law – Law with respect to conviction in the case of
circumstantial evidence – Discussed.
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Law of extra-judicial
confession – Discussed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The prosecution case mainly rests on the
testimony of (PW-2), ex-Sarpanch of village Maluka insofar as
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1033 : 2023 INSC 614
1033
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1034
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
extra-judicial confession is concerned. Insofar as the last seen
theory is concerned, the prosecution relies on the evidence of
complainant TS(PW-3), step-son of appellant MK and the
statement of JS (PW9). The evidence of Dr. RKG (PW-5), Medical
Expert who has conducted the autopsy and SI AS (PW-11) would
also be relevant. From the evidence of PW-2, it cannot be said
that the extra-judicial confession is one which could be found to
be credible. There appears to be no reason as to why the accused
persons would go 100 kms. away and confess to him. Apart from
that, his conduct also appears to be unnatural. Though IO AS
(PW-11) was known to him and the telephone which was installed
in his house was in a working condition, he did not find it necessary
to inform him through telephone. The courts below have erred
in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to PW-2.
[Paras 9 and 13][1040-G-H; 1044-E-G]
1.2 With respect to another circumstantial evidence, i.e.
the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and
the deceased was found dead shortly thereafter, the prosecution
relies on the evidence of complainant TS (PW-3) and JS (PW-9).
It appears to be improbable that, when appellant MK had herself
threatened the deceased that he would no longer be alive, a real
brother (PW-3) would permit the deceased to accompany her and
another accused and, that too, when the accused was carrying a
gun with her. Though PW-9 has stated that on 03.09.1998, accused
MK had exhorted co-accused PS that RS was alone and he should
be done away with, when the death of the deceased had occurred
on the very next day, he did not find it necessary to inform anyone
about it, including the police, till he was summoned to the
Police Station on 10.09.1998. [Paras 14, 16 and 19][1044-G-H;
1045-G-H; 1046-D-E]
1.3 Though the dead body of the deceased was found on
4th September 1998, the statement of MS (PW-2) to whom the
alleged extra-judicial confession was made, was recorded on 9th
September 1998. SI AS (PW-11) has admitted in his examination
that MS (PW-2) was known to him. He has further stated that he
did not know in how many cases of his Police Station MS was
cited as witness. It is further to be noted that the statement of JS
(PW-9) was recorded on 10th September 1998. As (PW-11) has
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1035
also admitted in his evidence that though the father of RS was
alive in those days, he did not record his statement by visiting
his village. PW-11 further admitted that he also did not visit the
house of

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