The Punjab & Haryana High Court, highlighting various inconsistencies in the circumstantial evidence used by the Trial Court, overturned the conviction of Palwinder Singh, who had been sentenced to death for the murder of his entire family, including his wife, two children, and a farm worker and consequently, he was acquitted of the murder charges.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, convicted of orchestrating the murder of his entire family and a farm worker as part of a plot to marry his current wife, was handed a death sentence by the trial court. This judgement and the accompanying sentence have been contested by the petitioner, who is now challenging the trial court's decision through the instant appeal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court overlooked the nine-month delay in FIR filing, which was based on the contradictory statements of a witness. He emphasized the prosecution's reliance on the dubious account of another witness at the crime scene, questioning the narrative's credibility. Additionally, the counsel highlighted the unreliability of the first witness's testimony, noting his inconsistent and unnatural behavior.
Further, he raised doubts about the credibility of another witness, related to the deceased, whose alleged threats to the accused undermine his court statements. The counsel for the petitioner criticized the investigation as biased and hastily completed on the same day the FIR was filed, suggesting an unfair process.
He also questioned the trial court's acceptance of an extra-judicial confession from another witness, given its improbability due to the absence of an FIR against him at that time, and his failure to report it to the police. The counsel expressed concerns about yet another witness's delayed report of an overheard conversation, only recorded on the FIR's registration day.
Additionally, he noted the trial court's oversight in properly evaluating the statement of another witness regarding an offense under Section 201 IPC. Finally, the counsel for the petitioner pointed out the prosecution's failure to establish any motive against the appellant, citing the lack of evidence for an illicit relationship or prior conspiracy.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent (State) advocated for upholding the death sentence for one appellant and life imprisonment for the other, asserting that the trial court rightly convicted them of murder. He noted that it was unusual for villagers like the appellants to have life insurance policies for their family or workers. Yet, witness testimonies revealed that such policies were acquired for the deceased just before the incident, indicating a calculated plot by the appellants to rid themselves of family members for financial gain from an illicit relationship.
The counsel stressed the severity of the crime, pointing out the killing of four people, including two minors, by one of the appellants. He argued this merited classification as a 'rarest of rare' case, warranting the death penalty for the petitioner. The counsel concluded by seeking the dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellants and confirmation of the death penalty for the primary petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that if the murder was planned, the deceased wife of the accused would have likely confided in someone close. Similarly, no complaints were made by the relatives of the deceased farm worker. The Court also questioned the delay in lodging the FIR, citing Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar and another 2012 (2) RCR (Crl.) 251, which states that delay in lodging the FIR diminishes its credibility.
The Trial Court's condonation of the delay in FIR filing was criticized, especially considering the accused was the sole survivor and didn't attempt to save other car occupants. The High Court further observed that the emotional reasons behind the accused selling his car were disregarded by the Trial Court, which misinterpreted it as an attempt to destroy evidence.
Moreover, the Court pointed out that the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not properly considered, where the accused explained his mother's proposal to his present wife due to the absence of family members to take care of her. The Court also highlighted that the prosecution case suffers from many infirmities and failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, referencing Sunny Kapoor vs. State (U.T. of Chandigarh) (2006) 10 SCC 182 and Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab (2009) 6 SCC 564, which emphasize the need for corroboration in cases reliant on extra-judicial confession. The Court concluded that the conviction, based on these factors, contradicts the law laid down by the Apex Court on several occasions.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner.
Case Title: State of Punjab v. Palwinder Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan
Case No.: Murder Reference No. 3 of 2020
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Mr. B.N.S. Marok, Mr. Kunwar Rajan
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. V.G Jauhar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
