SUCHA SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 22-03-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUCHASINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
MARCH 22, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302, 362 and 34-Abduction and murder-Appellant and three 
others forcibly took away the deceased during the days of militancy in Punjab 
as their father was suspected to be a police tout-Father of the deceased had 
sensed danger and hid in tile same house-Bodies of deceased discovered next 
morning and the father infom1ed the police after contacting. his other sons 
staying at another City-Special Court awarded life imprisonment-On appeal 
Held, a series of circumstances especially in the backdrop of terrorism in 
Punjab prove that the deceased were murdered to pursue a specific motive-
Parents of the deceased we're present in the house when they were taken away, 
their father could have been the reai target but was saved as he was hiding- · 
Defence witnesses have not been able to prove that parents of the deceased were 
not present at the time of occurrence-Conviction upheld. 
Sections 302, 364 an.d 34-Abduction and murder-Absence of any 
direct evidence-Abductors dutybound to tell the court what happened to the 
victim after abduction-Inference of murder could be drawn unless the court is 
satisfied to the contrary. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 106-Burden of proving fact especially 
within knowledge of accused-Yet prosecution not relieved from proving the 
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 
Appellant along with three others has allegedly conspired to murder 
two sons of P as they suspected him to be a police tout during the days of 
militancy in punjab. They took his sons from his house, ignoring the 
protest of his wife, though at house P was hiding himself. After a short 
while, gunshots were heard and on the next morning P discovered their 
bodies. He did not inform the police immediately. He went to Amritsar 
City on a bicycle to inform his elder sons and later on furnished details to 
the police. Only two ot' the conspirators were charged under Terrorist and 
644 
' 
1 
SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
645 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 302 read with Section 
A 
34 J.P.C. as the other two were absconding. They were acquitted of the 
offences under TADA, however, sentenced to life imprisonment for the 
offences under I.P.C. Only one or the convicts filed this appeal. 
Appellant contended that P and his wife were staying with their 
elder sons in Amritsar aty on the fateful night and were not present at the 
time of occurrence; that there was delay in informing the police; that no 
attempt was made to catch P.W. 3 who should have been the actual target 
which, proves his absence from the scene of occurrence;; that even if the 
deceased were taken away by the conspirators it would be inappropriate to 
assume that the appellant was one of the killers; and that the purpose of 
Section 106 of the Evidence Actis not to fill up the vacuum in the prosecu· 
tion evidence; and that the burden to prove the guilt is always on the 
prosecution, and the accused has a right to remain tightlipped. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Three witnesses were examined on the defence side to say 
that the old parents were actually living in Amritsar for about six months 
prior to the occurrence, but that would not help to show that they were 
living differently from the house where the deceased stayed on that night 
as the expression "Amritsar'' could encompass even areas lying on the 
periphery of the city limit also. [ 649-C-D] 
2. There is no material to assume that the assailants did not count the 
sons also as touts of the police along with their father. In fact all the visible 
male members of the family were taken away and P was left out as he was 
B 
c 
D 
E 
hiding due to fear. The fact that the accused succeeded in taking away the 
F 
two sons alone is not enough to doubt the presence of P and his wife in the 
house on the crucial night. [650-B-C] 
3. On the testimony of P and his wife the circumstances against the 
appellant are that the incident happened during the period of terrorism in 
Punjab; that the house of the deceased was considered as the home of 
police touts; that the appellant and three others reached the house during 
the dead of night, armed with AK-47 rifles and caught the deceased and 
forcibly took them away; that within a shortwhile they heard the sound of 
gunshots; that the deceased did not return to the house during that nigh

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