Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -1-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
1. CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M)
Reserved on: 4.11.2024
Date of Decision: 20.11.2024
Bhupinder Singh ......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent
2. CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
Navdeep Kaur ......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Argued by: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-D-1311-DB-2013) and
for respondent No. 2 (in CRA-D-1365-DB-2013).
Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate with
Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since both the appeals (supra) arise from a common verdict,
made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra)
are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.
2. CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 is directed against the impugned
verdict, as made on 1.10.2013, upon case Sessions case bearing No. 25 of
16.10.2012, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur,
wherethrough in respect of charges respectively drawn against the accused
1 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -2-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
qua offences punishable under Sections 302, 212, 216 IPC and under
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1954, thus the learned trial Judge
concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against accused-
appellant Bhupinder Singh under Section 302 IPC and under Sections 25
and 27 of the Arms Act, 1954. However, co-accused Mandeep Singh stands
acquitted of the charges framed against him qua the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 212 and 216 IPC.
3. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the
learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the accused-appellant Bhupinder
Singh, in the hereafter extracted manner-
Under Section Sentence
302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for the whole of his
life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty thousand only). In case of default of
payment of fine the convict shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years.
25/54/59 Arms Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. fine
of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). In
default of payment of fine to further undergo
RI for six months.
27/54/59 Arms Act To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. fine
of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only).
In default of payment of fine to further undergo
RI for one year.
4. All the above imposed sentences of imprisonment upon the
convict-appellant, were ordered to run concurrently.
5. Complainant Navdeep Kaur has preferred criminal appeal
bearing No. CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 seeking enhancement of the sentence
being awarded to the convict, and, with a further prayer therein, that the
compensation amount be awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -3-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
Factual Background
6. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the
appeal FIR, to which Ex. PW-7/B is assigned. As per the prosecution case,
complainant Navdeep Kaur wife of Bhupinder Singh daughter of Balbir
Singh got recorded her statement before SI Shiv Singh, wherein she stated
that she was resident of Ward No. 3 Miani and is a household lady. Her
marriage was solemnized in the year 2006 with Bhupinder Singh son of
Harbhajan Singh, resident of Ward No.5, Village Miani, PS Tanda, District
Hoshiarpur. Her husband had come from Germany. She was not having
cordial relations with her husband, as he used to ask her for divorce forcibly.
Her mother-in-law Kudeep Kaur, her brother-in-law (Jeth) Sukhwinder
Singh used to take side of her husband for harassing her. Her Jeth and
Jethani had come from Germany 2-4 days ago, and, all of them had
conspired to eliminate her mother and brother. On the fateful day, her
husband called her mother and her brother Lovepreet Singh to his house at
village Miani, where her mother-in-law Kuldeep Kaur was also present. Her
husband started quarelling with her mother and brother without any reason
and also insulted them. Out of fear, her mother and brother came out of
her in law's house, and, when they were going to sit in their car bearing
No. PB-07R-4114, her husband made two fire shots from his pistol towards
her brother Lovepreet Singh, which hit him on his right shoulder and the
right side of his chest. Upon raising alarm by her mother, her husband made
a fire shot from his pistol towards his mother, which hit her on the right side
of her chest, as a result thereof, she fell down on ground. The occurrence
took place at about 1.00 PM near Punjab National Bank, Miani and
witnessed by Malkiat Singh son of Amar Singh resident of village Bhoolpur
3 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -4-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
who had come to village Miani for his personal work. She further states
thereins, that after making arrangement of vehicle, her brother Lovepreet
Singh and her mother were shifted to Civil Hospital, Tanda where both of
them were declared brought dead by doctors. She further got recorded that
death of her mother and brother was caused by her husband Bhupinder
Singh in conspiracy with said Kuldeep Kaur, Shukhwinder Singh and
Harpreet Kaur. On the basis of the said statement, the appeal FIR became
recorded.
Investigation proceedings
7. During the course of investigations, the investigating officer
concerned, prepared the inquest report qua the dead bodies of Surinder Kaur
and of Lovepreet Singh, and, the dead bodies were deposited in the
mortuary. On the same day the investigating officer concerned, visited the
place of occurrence and inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan and
the investigating officer concerned, took into possession car bearing No. PB-
07-R4112. The post-mortem on the dead bodies were got conducted. After
the post mortem examination the dead bodies were handed over to the
relatives of deceased. Clothes of the deceased were also taken into
possession along with the parcel containing two bullets which were taken
out by the doctors from the dead body of Lovepreet Singh. On 11.6.2012,
accused Bhupinder Singh surrendered himself in the Court and on receipt of
information, the investigating officer obtained the production warrants from
learned Ilaqa Magistrate and after obtaining the permission, he arrested
accused Bhupinder Singh, and, the intimation of his arrest was given to the
counsel for the accused.
8. During investigations, accused Bhupinder Singh suffered
4 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -5-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
disclosure statements Ex.PW7/M, Ex. PW7/N and Ex.PW7/O but no
recovery of revolver and empty cartridges was effected. On 17.6.2012
accused Bhupinder Singh again suffered disclosure statement Ex. PW6/C,
and, pursuant to his above made disclosure statement, he got recovered one
envelope containing a revolver .32 bore, five empty cartridges and seven live
cartridge from the disclosed place, which were taken into possession vide
recovery memo Ex. PW6/D. After conclusion of investigations, the
investigating officer concerned, proceeded to institute a report under Section
173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned committal Court concerned.
Committal Proceedings
9. Since the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was exclusively
triable by the Court of Session, thus, the learned committal Court concerned,
through a committal order made on 3.10.2012, hence proceeded to commit
the accused to face trial before the Court of Session.
Trial Proceedings
10. The learned trial Judge concerned, after receiving the case for
trial, after its becoming committed to him, made an objective analysis of the
incriminatory material, adduced before him. Resultantly, he proceeded to
draw charges against accused-appellant Bhupinder Singh for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the
Arms Act, and, also drew charges against accused Mandeep Singh for the
offences punishable under Sections 212 and 216 IPC. The afore drawn
charges were put to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty, and,
claimed trial.
11. In proof of its case, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses,
and, thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, closed the
5 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -6-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
prosecution evidence.
12. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the learned trial
Judge concerned, drew proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but
thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. The
accused led one defence witnesses into the witness box.
Submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant
13. The learned counsel for the aggrieved convict-appellant has
argued before this Court, that both the impugned verdict of conviction, and,
the consequent thereto order of sentence, thus require an interference. They
support the above submission on the ground, that they are based on a gross
misappreciation, and, non-appreciation of evidence germane to the charge.
He rests the above submission on the ground(s), that the case of the
prosecution is full of contradictions and improvements.
(i) He has also argued that since PW-1 Dr.Vinay Sharma,
has also admitted in his cross-examination, that in the inquest report, there is
mentioning of only one gun shot injury on the dead body of Surinder Kaur,
whereas, in the post-mortem report of the said deceased, contra thereto
speakings occurring, inasmuch as, it becomes echoed thereins, that three gun
shot injuries occurring on the body of deceased Surinder Kaur, therebys the
said discrepancy makes the charge to stagger.
(ii) The learned senior counsel has further argued that since
PW-2 Malkiat Singh is not an independent witness, and is only a procured
witness, who has been introduced by the prosecution, thereupon the
testimony of the said witness is required to be discarded.
(iii) Furthermore, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to
show any motive qua the alleged offence.
6 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -7-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
(iv) Moreover, the learned senior counsel has also argued,
that since two bullets, as became extracted from the body of deceased
Lovepreet Singh, thus were not sent for examinations thereof to the FSL
concerned, therebys the prosecution case becomes staggered.
Submissions of the learned State counsel
14. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued before
this Court, that the verdict of conviction, and, consequent thereto sentence(s)
(supra), as become imposed upon the convict, are well merited, and, do not
require any interference, being made by this Court in the exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, he has argued that the appeals (supra), as
preferred by the convicts-appellants be dismissed.
Submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant
15. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the
prosecution case is based on direct evidence, which is duly corroborated by
link evidence, wherebys the prosecution version has been proved beyond
any reasonable doubt. He has further argued that since the post-mortem
report clearly speaks about two injuries occurring on the body of deceased
Lovepreet Singh and three injuries occurring on the body of deceased
Surinder Kaur, thereupon besides with the eye witness account rendered
respectively by the complainant Navdeep Kaur and by Malkiat Singh being
mutually consistent, therebys implicit reliance is required to be placed
thereons, thus cumulative therebys the charge against the accused becomes
proven to the hilt.
Analysis of the depositions of the eye witnesses to the occurrence,
who respectively stepped into the witness box as PW-2 and PW-3
16. Complainant Navdeep Kaur, stepped into the witness box as
PW-3. The deposition, as made by the said witness, in her examination-in-
7 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -8-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
chief, becomes extracted hereinafter.
"I am housewife. My marriage took place on 15.10.2006 with
Bhupinder Singh accused present in the court. Bhupinder Singh had
come from Germany. After marriage the relations were not cordial
between us. He was forcibly demanding divorce from me. Besides my
husband, my mother in law Kuldeep Kaur, elder brother of my
husband Sukhwinder Singh and his wife Harpreet Kaur were there in
the family. The abovesaid persons alongwith my husband used to
harass me. My Jeth and Jethani had come from Germany two/four
days prior to the occurrence. They hatched a plan as to how to kill my
mother and my brother. On 2.6.2012, my husband called my mother
Surinder Kaur and my brother Lovepreet Singh called to his house at
ward No.5 Minai adjoining to Punjab National Bank, for meeting. At
about 12:45 PM my mother and my brother came to my house. Then
my husband without any reason started fighting with my mother and
brother. My mother and my brother out of fear came out of the house.
My mother and my brother used to sit in the car and my husband
followed them, at that time it was around 1:00 PM. Then my husband
took away revolver from his waist (dabb). He fired two shots upon my
brother which hit on his right shoulder and right flank. When my
mother raised roula, then accused fired three shots upon my mother
which hit on her flank. My brother came on Ritz car. Malkiat Singh
PW came to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. After firing shorts
my husband and my mother-in-law entered into the house. I do not
know what happened with revolver from which accused fired shot. I
and Malkiat Singh took my mother and my brother to Civil Hospital,
Tanda. Where doctor declared them dead. My statement Ex. PW3/A
was got recorded by the police, which bears my signature. It was read
over to me and I appended my signature after admitting the same to be
correct. Police also recorded by supplementary statement.
Prior to this occurrence, my Jeth and Jethani gave beatings to
me and I reported the manner to the police of PS Tanda and
compromise effected with them in writing. Today, I have seen the
Photostat copy of the compromise. The original of which was given to
the Police of PS Tanda. It bears my signature and that of Harpreet
Kaur. It also bears the signature of my husband Bhupinder Singh and
my Jeth Sukhwinder Singh. Copy of the compromise is Mark-A.
Accused Bhupinder Singh is present in the Court".
8 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -9-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
17. In her examination-in-chief (supra), the said witness has voiced
a narrative, qua the genesis of the prosecution case, which is in complete
tandem with her previously made statement, in writing, and, to which
Ex.PW-3/A becomes assigned. Though, she was subjected to the ordeal of a
grilling cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, but she
remained unscathed in the said ordeal.
18. Since a wholesome reading of her testification, as carried in her
examination-in-chief, and, in her cross-examination, does not unfold, qua
thereins rather becoming carried any rife improvements or embellishments
viz-a-viz her previously recorded statement, in writing, nor when her
testification suffers from any further taint of its being ridden with any intra
se contradiction, thus intra se her examination-in-chief, and, her cross-
examination, therefore, utmost sanctity is to be assigned to his testification.
19. The deposition of PW-3 becomes supported by the depositions
of the other eye witness to the occurrence, namely Malkiat Singh, who
stepped into the witness box as PW-2. The echoings occurring in the
examination-in-chief of PW-2 are in complete harmony with the echoings,
as became rendered in respect of the crime event by PW-3. In sequel, the
testifications rendered by PW-2, and, PW-3 vis-a-vis the crime event, when
rather are in complete inter se alignment, as such, their respectively made
testifications were amenable to become relied, upon, as aptly done by the
learned trial Court concerned.
Signatured disclosure statement of convict-appellant
Bhupinder Singh Ex. PW6/C
20. During the course of investigations, being made into the appeal
FIR, convict-appellant Bhupinder Singh, thus made his signatured disclosure
statement, to which Ex. PW6/C becomes assigned. The signatured disclosure
9 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -10-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
statement, as made by the accused is ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
"x x x x
I with which revolver I killed my mother-in-law Surinder Kaur
w/o Balbir Singh r/o Miani PS Tanda and brother-in-law
Lovepreet Singh s/o Balbir Singh r/o Miani PS Tanda with my
revolver shot them dead. That revolver in a polythene along
with cover and live cartridges I kept in my fields at v. Miani
near the grave of my grandfather by putting the same in
polythene envelope along with empties and live cartridges
buried the same by digging the ditch. I only knew about this. I
can got it recovered by giving the demarcation.
x x x x"
21. Pursuant to the above made signatured disclosure statement, the
convict-appellant ensured the recovery of a .32 bore revolver along with five
empty covers, and, of seven live cartridge, all of which were taken into
police possession, through a recovery memo, to which Ex. PW6/D becomes
assigned.
22. The disclosure statement (supra), carries thereons the signature,
of the convict-appellant. In his signatured disclosure statement (supra), the
convict, confessed his guilt in inflicting injuries on the person of both the
deceased, hence with the recovered weapon. The further speaking therein is
qua his keeping, and, concealing the incriminatory weapon of offence.
Moreover, the said signatured disclosure statement does also make
speakings about his alone being aware about the location of his hiding and
keeping the same, and, also revealed his willingness to cause the recovery of
the incriminatory weapon, to the investigating officer concerned, from the
place of his hiding, and, keeping the same.
23. Significantly, since the appellant has not been able to either
ably deny his signatures as occurs on the exhibit (supra) nor when he has
10 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -11-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
been able to prove the apposite denial. Moreover, since they he has also not
been able to bring forth tangible evidence but suggestive that the
recovery(ies) is/are either contrived or invented. Therefore, the exhibit(supra)
is prima facie concluded to be holding the utmost evidentiary tenacity .
24. Significantly also, since post the making of the said signatured
disclosure statement, thus by the convict to the investigating officer
concerned, he through the recovery memo (Ex. PW6/D), thus caused the
recovery of the weapon of offence to the investigating officer concerned.
Consequently, when the said made recovery(ies) is/are also not suggested by
any cogent evidence to be planted recovery(ies). Resultantly, the effect
thereof, is that, valid recovery(ies) was/were made vis-a-vis the
incriminatory weapon of offence by the convict, to the investigating officer
concerned. In sequel, the making of the valid signatured disclosure
statement, by the convict besides the pursuant thereto effectuation of valid
recovery(ies) of the incriminatory weapon of offence, thus by the convict to
the investigating officer concerned, but naturally prima facie corroborates
and supports the case of the prosecution.
25. However, yet for assessing the vigor of the said made disclosure
statement and consequent thereto made recovery, it is apt to refer to the
principles governing the assigning of creditworthiness to the said made
disclosure statement and to the consequent thereto made recovery. The
principles governing the facet (supra), become embodied in paragraphs Nos.
23 to 27 of a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal
Appeal Nos.1030 of 2023, titled as "Manoj Kumar Soni V. State of
Madhya Pradesh", decided on 11.8.2023, relevant paragraphs whereof
11 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -12-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
become extracted hereinafter.
23. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements under
Section 27, Evidence Act made by the accused himself seems to be
well established. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri
Kotayya and others vs. King-Emperor holds the field even today
wherein it was held that the provided information must be directly
relevant to the discovered fact, including details about the physical
object, its place of origin, and the accused person's awareness of
these aspects. The Privy Council observed:
The difficulty, however great, of proving that a fact
discovered on information supplied by the accused is a
relevant fact can afford no justification for reading into s. 27
something which is not there, and admitting in evidence a
confession barred by s. 26. Except in cases in which the
possession, or concealment, of an object constitutes the gist of
the offence charged, it can seldom happen that information
relating to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the
prosecution case. It is only one link in the chain of proof, and
the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law.
24. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of
co-accused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place
reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used
them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir Lawrence
Jenkins observed in Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty,
to "lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused". In
Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar, this Court, speaking
through the Constitution Bench, elaborated upon the approach
to be adopted by courts when dealing with disclosure
statements:
13. ...In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution
relies upon the confession of one accused person against
another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to
consider the other evidence against such an accused person,
and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the
court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain
the charge framed against the said accused person, the court
turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the
conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other
evidence is right.
25. In yet another case of discrediting a flawed conviction
12 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -13-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
under Section 411, IPC, this Court, in Shiv Kumar vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh overturned the conviction under Section 411,
declined to place undue reliance solely on the disclosure
statements of the co-accused, and held:
24. ..., the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be
accepted as a proof of the appellant having knowledge of
utensils being stolen goods. The prosecution has also failed to
establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the
utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of
selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the
conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those
articles. The essential ingredient of mens rea is clearly not
established for the charge under Section 411 IPC. The
prosecution's evidence on this aspect, as they would speak of
the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be
appropriately described as, "you speak an infinite deal of
nothing." [William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 1
Scene 1.]
26. Coming to the case at hand, there is not a single iota of
evidence except the disclosure statements of Manoj and the co-
accused, which supposedly led the I.O. to the recovery of the
stolen articles from Manoj and Rs.3,000.00 from Kallu. At this
stage, we must hold that admissibility and credibility are two
distinct aspects and the latter is really a matter of evaluation of
other available evidence. The statements of police witnesses
would have been acceptable, had they supported the
prosecution case, and if any other credible evidence were
brought on record. While the recoveries made by the I.O. under
Section 27, Evidence Act upon the disclosure statements by
Manoj, Kallu and the other co-accused could be held to have
led to discovery of facts and may be admissible, the same
cannot be held to be credible in view of the other evidence
available on record.
27. While property seizure memos could have been a reliable
piece of evidence in support of Manoj's conviction, what has
transpired is that the seizure witnesses turned hostile right from
the word 'go'. The common version of all the seizure witnesses,
i.e., PWs 5, 6, 11 and 16, was that they were made to sign the
13 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -14-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
seizure memos on the insistence of the 'daroga' and that too,
two of them had signed at the police station. There is, thus, no
scope to rely on a part of the depositions of the said PWs 5, 6,
11 and 16. Viewed thus, the seizure loses credibility.
26. Furthermore, in a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Criminal Appeal No.2438 of 2010, titled as "Bijender @ Mandar
V. State of Haryana", decided on 08.11.2021, the relevant principles
governing the apposite assigning of creditworthiness become set forth in
paragraph 16 thereof, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
16. We have implored ourselves with abounding
pronouncements of this Court on this point. It may be true that
at times the Court can convict an accused exclusively on the
basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of
inculpatory material. However, in order to sustain the guilt of
such accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not
be shrouded with elements of doubt. We may hasten to add that
circumstances such as (i) the period of interval between the
malfeasance and the disclosure; (ii) commonality of the
recovered object and its availability in the market; (iii) nature
of the object and its relevance to the crime; (iv) ease of
transferability of the object; (v) the testimony and
trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the Court and/or
other like factors, are weighty consideraions that aid in
gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the
recovery. (See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. The State; Pancho vs. State
of Haryana; State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr and
Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka).
27. Furthermore, in another judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.863 of 2019, titled as
"Perumal Raja @ Perumal V. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police", decided
on 03.01.2024, the relevant principles governing the assigning of
creditworthiness become set forth in paragraphs 22 to 25 thereof, paragraphs
14 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -15-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
whereof become extracted hereinafter.
22. However, we must clarify that Section 27 of the Evidence
Act, as held in these judgments, does not lay down the principle
that discovery of a fact is to be equated to the object produced
or found. The discovery of the fact resulting in recovery of a
physical object exhibits knowledge or mental awareness of the
person accused of the offence as to the existence of the physical
object at the particular place. Accordingly, discovery of a fact
includes the object found, the place from which it was produced
and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. To this
extent, therefore, factum of discovery combines both the
physical object as well as the mental consciousness of the
informant accused in relation thereto. In Mohmed Inayatullah
v. State of Maharashtra12, elucidating on Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, it has been held that the first condition imposed
and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the
discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in
consequence of information received from a person accused of
an offence. The second is that the discovery of such a fact must
be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul
and not meet this condition. The third is that at the time of
receipt of the information, the accused must be in police
custody. Lastly, it is only so much of information which relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of
a physical object which is admissible. Rest of the information is
to be excluded. The word 'distinctly' is used to limit and define
the scope of the information and means 'directly',
'indubitably', 'strictly' or 'unmistakably'. Only that part of the
information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of
discovery is admissible.
23. The facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the
admissible portion of the statement of the accused, would give
rise to two alternative hypotheses, namely, (i) that the accused
had himself deposited the physical items which were recovered;
or (ii) only the accused knew that the physical items were lying
15 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -16-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
at that place. The second hypothesis is wholly compatible with
the innocence of the accused, whereas the first would be a
factor to show involvement of the accused in the offence. The
court has to analyse which of the hypotheses should be
accepted in a particular case.
24. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the
police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to
ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to
abuse. However, this does not mean that in every case
invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with
suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory and unworthy
of credence.
25. The pre-requisite of police custody, within the meaning of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, ought to be read pragmatically
and not formalistically or euphemistically. In the present case,
the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37) was made by the
appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal on 25.04.2008, when he
was detained in another case, namely, FIR No. 204/2008,
registered at PS Grand Bazar, Puducherry, relating to the
murder of Rajaram. He was subsequently arrested in this case,
that is FIR. No.80/2008, which was registered at PS
Odiansalai, Puducherry. The expression "custody" under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It
includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance
by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at
the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed,
for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police.
28. Now the principles set forth thereins are that the defence, is
required to be proving;
i) That the disclosure statement and the consequent thereto
recovery being forged or fabricated through the defence proving
that the discovery of fact, as made in pursuance to a signatured
16 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -17-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
disclosure statement made by the accused to the investigating
officer, during the term of his custodial interrogation, rather not
leading to the discovery of the incriminatory fact;
ii) That the fact discovered was planted;
iii) It was easily available in the market;
iv) It not being made from a secluded place thus exclusively
within the knowledge of the accused.
v) The recovery thereof made through the recovery memo in
pursuance to the making of a disclosure statement, rather not
being enclosed in a sealed cloth parcel nor the incriminatory
item enclosed therein becoming sent, if required, for analyses to
the FSL concerned, nor the same becoming shown to the doctor
concerned, who steps into the witness box for proving that with
the user of the relevant recovery, thus resulted in the causings of
the fatal ante mortem injuries or in the causing of the relevant
life endangering injuries, as the case may be, upon the
concerned.
vi) That the defence is also required to be impeaching the
credit of the marginal witnesses, both to the disclosure
statement and to the recovery memo by ensuring that the said
marginal witnesses, do make speakings, that the recoveries were
not made in their presence and by making further speakings that
they are compelled, tutored or coerced by the investigating
officer concerned, to sign the apposite memos. Conspicuously,
despite the fact that the said recovery memos were not made in
pursuance to the accused leading the investigating officer to the
17 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -18-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
site of recovery. Contrarily the recovery memo(s) becoming
prepared in the police station concerned.
vii) The defence adducing evidence to the extent that with
there being an immense gap inter se the making of the
signatured disclosure statement and the consequent thereto
recovery being made, that therebys the recovered items or the
discovered fact, rather becoming planted onto the relevant site,
through a stratagem employed by the investigating officer.
29. Therefore, unless the said defence(s) are well raised and are
also ably proven, thereupon the making of a disclosure statement by the
accused and the consequent thereto recovery, but are to be assigned
credence. Conspicuously, when the said incriminatory link in the chain of
incriminatory evidence rather is also the pivotal corroborative link, thus even
in a case based upon eye witness account.
30. Be that as it may, if upon a prosecution case rested upon eye
witness account, the eye witness concerned, resiles therefrom his previously
made statement. Moreover, also upon his becoming cross-examined by the
learned Public Prosecutor concerned, thus the judicial conscience of the
Court become completely satisfied that the investigating officer concerned,
did record, thus a fabricated apposite previously made statement in writing,
therebys the Courts would be led to declare that the said made apposite
resilings are well made resilings by the eye witness concerned, thus from his
previously made statement in writing.
31. Moreover, in case the Court, in the above manner, becomes
satisfied about the well made resilings by the eye witness concerned, to the
crime event, thereupon the Court may consequently draw a conclusion, that
18 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -19-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
the recoveries made in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the
accused, even if they do become ably proven, yet therebys may be the said
disclosure statement, and, the consequent thereto made recoveries also
loosing their evidentiary tenacity. The said rule is not a straitjacket principle,
but it has to be carefully applied depending upon the facts, circumstances
and evidence in each case. Tritely put in the said event, upon comparative
weighings being made of the well made resilings, thus by the eye witness
concerned, from his previously made statement in writing, and, of the well
proven recoveries made in pursuance to the efficaciously proven disclosure
statement rendered by the accused, the Court is required to be drawing a
conclusion, as to whether evidentiary tenacity has to be yet assigned to the
disclosure statement and the pursuant thereto recovery memo, especially
when they become ably proven and also do not fall foul from the above
stated principles, and/or to the well made resiling by the eye witness
concerned, from his previously recorded statement in writing. Emphatically,
the said exercise requires an insightful apposite comparative analyses being
made.
32. To a limited extent also if there is clear cogent medical account,
which alike, a frailly rendered eye witness account to the extent (supra), vis-a-
vis the prosecution case based upon eye witness account rather unfolds qua the
ante mortem injuries or other injuries as became entailed on the apposite
regions of the body(ies) concerned, thus not being a sequel of users thereovers
of the recovered weapon of offence. Resultantly therebys too, the apposite
signatured disclosure statement and the consequent thereto recovery, when may
be is of corroborative evidentiary vigor, but when other adduced prosecution
evidence, but also likewise fails to connect the recoveries with the medical
account. In sequel, thus therebys the said signatured disclosure statement and
19 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -20-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
the consequent thereto recovery, thus may also loose their evidentiary vigor.
Even the said rule has to be carefully applied depending upon the facts,
circumstances, and, the adduced evidence in every case.
33. However, in a case based upon circumstantial evidence when
the appositely made signatured disclosure statement by the accused and the
consequent thereto prepared recovery memos, do not fall foul, of the above
stated principles, therebys they acquire grave evidentiary vigor, especially
when in pursuance thereto able recoveries are made.
34. The makings of signatured disclosure statement and the
consequent thereto recoveries, upon able proof becoming rendered qua both,
thus form firm incriminatory links in a case rested upon circumstantial
evidence. In the above genre of cases, the prosecution apart from proving the
above genre of charges, thus also become encumbered with the duty to
discharge the apposite onus, through also cogently proving other
incriminatory links, if they are so adduced in evidence, rather for sustaining
the charge drawn against the accused.
35. Consequently, since the statutory provisions enclosed in Section
25 of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof becomes extracted
hereinafter, do not assign statutory admissibility to a simpliciter/bald
confession made by an accused, thus before the police officer, rather during
the term of his suffering custodial interrogation, but when the exception
thereto, becomes engrafted in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
provisions whereof becomes extracted hereinafter. Therefore, therebys when
there is a statutory recognition of admissibility to a confession, as, made by
an accused before a police officer, but only when the confession, as made by
the accused, before the police officer concerned, but becomes made during
20 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -21-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
the term of his spending police custody, whereafters the said incriminatory
confession, rather also evidently leads the accused, to lead the investigating
officer to the place of discovery, place whereof, is exclusively within the
domain of his exclusive knowledge.
"25. Confession to police-officer not to be proved.--No confession made
to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any
offence.
x x x x x
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.--
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence
of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the
custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved."
36. Significantly, it would not be insagacious to straightaway oust
the said made signatured disclosure statement or the consequent thereto
recovery, unless both fall foul of the above principles, besides unless the
said principles become proven by the defence. Contrarily, in case the
disclosure statement and the consequent thereto recovery enclosed in the
respective memos, do not fall foul of the above principles rather when they
become cogently established to link the accused with the relevant charge.
Resultantly, if the said comprises but a pivotal incriminatory link for proving
the charge drawn against the accused, therebys the snatching of the above
incriminatory link from the prosecution, through straightaway rejecting the
same, but would result in perpetration of injustice to the victim or to the
family members of the deceased, as the case may be.
37. Now coming to the facts at hand, since the disclosure statement
and the consequent thereto recovery do become efficaciously proven by the
prosecution. Moreover, when none of the marginal witnesses, to the said
memos become adequately impeached rather for belying the validity of
21 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -22-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
drawings of the memos nor also when it has been proven that the said
memos are fabricated or engineered, besides when it is also not proven that
the disclosure (supra) did not lead to the discovery of the apposite fact from
the relevant place of hiding, thus only within the exclusive knowledge of the
accused.
38. Conspicuously also, when the said disclosure statement is but
not a bald or simpliciter disclosure statement, but evidently did lead to the
making of efficacious recovery(ies), at the instance of the accused, to the
police officer concerned.
39. Consequently, when therebys the above evident facts rather do
not fall foul of the above stated/underlined principles in the verdicts (supra).
Consequently, both the disclosure statement, and, the consequent thereto
recovery, when do become efficaciously proven, therebys theretos immense
evidentiary tenacity is to be assigned. Preeminently also when thus they do
corroborate the rendition of a credible eye witness account vis-a-vis the
crime event by the prosecution witnesses (supra). Moreover, when the
memos (supra) also lend corroboration to the medical account, therebys
through all the links (supra), the charge drawn against the accused becomes
proven to the hilt.
Post-mortem report
40. The post-mortem reports of deceased Lovepreet Singh and of
deceased Surinder Kaur, to which respectively Ex. PC and PD are assigned,
became proven by Dr. Vinay Sharma (PW-1). PW-1 in his examination-in-
chief, has deposed that on an autopsy being conducted on the body of
deceased Lovepreet Singh by him along with the Board of Doctors
consisting Dr. Karamjit Singh and Dr. J.S.Dhami, thus theirs noticing
22 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -23-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
thereons the hereinafter ante mortem injuries-
"1. Lacerated wound (entry wound) with inverted margins
measuring 1 x 1 cm present on lateral aspect of upper one third of
right arm. Margins were abraded with blackening on the wound.
On probing and dissection the wound tracked medially,
downwards and anteriorly traversing underlying sub cutaneous
tissue muscle intercostal space, right pleura, right lung and after
traversing through right lung a metallic bullet was present
posterior to the right margin of sternum 8 cm below the
suprasternal notch which was removed and preserved to be
handed over to the police. Right pleural cavity contained about
1½ liter of blood.
2. Lacerated wound (entry wound) with inverted margins
measuring 1 x 1 cm present on posterolateral aspect of right side
of chest in lower part 3 cm above subcostal margin. Margins
were abraded with blackening around the wound. On probing and
dissection the wound tracked upwards medially and anteriorly
traversing underlying subcutaneous tissue, intecostal space, right
lobe of liver, right lung, crossed midline, left lung and after
traversing left intercostal space, metallic bullet was present on
left side of chest, 3 cm and 4 cm lateral to left nipple which was
removed and preserved to be handed over to the police. Left
pleural cavity contained one liter of blood. Peritoneal cavity
contained one liter of blood."
41. PW-1 further deposed that on the same day, he along with
Board of Doctors consisting Dr. Karamjit Singh and Dr. Shashi Dhawan
conducted an autopsy on the body of deceased Surinder Kaur, and, they
noticed thereons the hereinafter ante mortem injuries-
"1. Lacerated wound (entry wound) with inverted margins
measuring 1 x 1 cm present on left side of chest, lateral aspect
upper part in mid axillary line 15 cm below left
acromioclavicular joint. Margins of wound were contused and
abraded with blackening around the wound. Corresponding cut
present on kameez which was encircled and signed and kameez
23 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -24-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
preserved to be handed over to the police.
2. Lacerated wound (exit wound) with Everted margins
measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm present on right side of chest in mid
axillary line 28 cm below right acromioclavicular join.
On dissection of thoracic cavity the wound extended from
injury No.1 medially and downwards traversing underlying
intercostals space, left pleural cavity, left lung, right lung and
after passing through it tracked to injury No.2. Left pleural cavity
contained 1 litter of blood and right pleural cavity contained 1½
liter of blood.
3. Lacerated wound (entry wound) in inverted margins
measuring 1 x 1 cm present on right side of chest anterior aspect,
8 cm from mid line and 10 cm below right sternoclavicular joint.
Margins were abraded with blackening around the wound.
Corresponding cut was present on the bra and kameez which was
encircled and signed and kameez and bra was preserved to be
handed over to police.
4. Lacerated wound (exit wound) with E verted margins
measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm present on upper 1/3 rd of lateral aspect
of right side of chest 22 cm below acromio clavicular joint,
corresponding cut was present on kameez which was encircled
and signed and kameez was preserved to be handed over to
police. On dissection the wound extended from injury No.3,
laterally downwards and backwards traversing intercostals
space, right pleural cavity, right lung and after passing through it
the wound tracked to injury No.4.
5. Lacerated wound (entry wound) with inverted margins
measuring 1 x 1 cm present on middle part of anterior aspect of
left arm, 18 cm below left acromio clavicular joint. The margins
were abraded with blackening around the wound, corresponding
cut was present on kameez which was encircled and signed and
kameez preserved to be handed over to police.
6. Lacerated wound (exit wound) with E verted margins
measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm present on medial side of upper part of
left arm 18 cm above medial epicondyle of left humerus.
Corresponding cut was present on kameez which was encircled
24 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -25-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
and signed and kameez preserved to be handed over to police. "
42. Furthermore, PW-1 also made a speaking in his examination-in-
chief, that the cause of demise of both the deceased (supra) was owing to
shock and haemorrhage, as a result of injuries (supra) to vital organs, which
were stated to be ante mortem in nature, and, also sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature.
43. The above made echoings by PW-1, in his examination-in-
chief, became never challenged through any efficacious cross-examination,
being made upon him, by the learned defence counsel. Therefore, the
opinion, as made by PW-1 qua the demise of the deceased, thus acquires
formidable force. Consequently, the above echoings, as made by PW-1, in
his examination-in-chief, do relate, the fatal ante-mortem injuries to the time
of the crime event hence taking place at the crime site.
Report of the ballistic expert Ex. PW7/Q.
44. Through letter No. 51793 of 25.7.2012, three sealed parcels,
and one unsealed parcel became sent, through HC Bhajan Singh No. 1839 to
the FSL concerned. After the ballistic expert making an examination of the
items, as became sent to him, he made the hereinafter extracted opinion, to
which Ex. PW7/Q, is assigned.
"x x x x
Articles received Three sealed parcels marked A to C,
each parcel sealed with seal of 'SS'
and one unsealed parcel marked 'D'
in the laboratory.
Seals were found intact and tallied
with the specimen seal.
Parcel 'A' contained Five 0.32 inch 'KF S&WL' cartridge
cases marked C/1 to C/5 in the
laboratory.
Parcel 'B' contained Seven 0.32 inch 'KF S&WL' cartridge
marked L/1 to L/7 the laboratory.
25 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -26-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
Parcel 'C' contained One 0.32 inch Arminious Revolver
marked W/1 in the laboratory.
Parcel 'D' contained Four test cartridges of 0.32 inch.
Result of Examination
On the basis of careful scientific examination it has been
concluded that:-
1. On chemical examination of barrel wash of 0.32 inch
Arminious Revolver marked W/1 contained in parcel 'C' under
reference, residue of smokeless powder has been detected.
Hence, W/1 had been used in firing. However, its last date/time
of fire can't be ascertained.
2. Three 0.32 inch 'KF S&WL' cartridge cases marked C/1
to C/3 contained in parcel 'A' had been fired from 0.32 inch
Arminious Revolver marked W/1 contained in parcel 'C'
referred above. However, it is not possible to link two 0.32 inch
cartridge cases marked C/4 and C/5 contained in parcel 'A'
with 0.32 inch Arminious Revolver marked W/1 referred above.
3. Seven 0.32 inch 'KF S&WL' cartridges marked L/1 to
L/7 contained in parcel 'C' under reference are live
cartridges."
45. A reading of the hereinabove extracted opinion, thus vividly
unveils, that 0.32 inch revolver marked as W/1 has been opined to be used in
firing. Furthermore, it also makes candid underlinings, that the fired 0.32
inch cartridge cases marked as C/1 to C/3, thus becoming fired from 0.32
inch revolver marked as W/1. However, it is also opined "that it is not
possible to link the cartridge cases marked as C/4 and C/5, thus with 0.32
inch revolver marked as W/1."
46. On the above score, the learned senior counsel for the appellant
has argued, that therebys the cartridge cases marked as C/4 and C/5 when
26 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -27-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
remain unlinked with .32 inch Arminius Revolver, as such, a severe dent is
caused to the prosecution case.
Reasons for rejecting the above arguments
47. However, the said argument is rejected on the ground, that
when the ballistic report (supra) rather in respect of cartridge cases marked
as C/4 and C/5 declares that "it is not possible" to link the said cartridge
cases with 0.32 inch Arminius Revolver marked as W/1. Therefore, the
supra words used in the opinion (supra), thus do not obviously underline a
clear and candid exculpatory opinion. Contrarily, the above words only
reflect some inability on the part of the ballistic expert, to make the possible
inter se link of 0.32 inch cartridge cases marked as C/4 and C/5 thus with
0.32 inch Arminius Revolver marked as W/1. The said lack of possibility of
apposite linkages may also arise from some lack of the best state of art
examination facilities existing at the Ballistic Division concerned.
Resultantly therebys the said lack of the possibility of the apposite inter se
linkage is but not of a telling exculpatory effect. Therefore, the said opinion
does not comprise the ablest exculpatory scientific evidence, nor does it
underwhelm the efficacy of the otherwise credible ocular account rendered
vis-a-vis the crime event by the ocular witnesses (supra). Furthermore, the
supra words also do not underwhelm the recovery of the firearm, made at the
instance of the accused-appellant to the investigating officer concerned,
especially when the said recovered firearm, thus for the supra stated reasons,
but is the most efficacious recovery wherebys it acquires evidentiary
tenacity.
48. The ballistic expert has also detailed in the opinion (supra) that
the fire arm was, as such, used in the commission of the fatal assault, upon
27 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -28-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
the deceased. If so the effect thereof, is that, the above lack of possibility of
the apposite linkage also getting benumbed.
49. Moreover reiteratedly, the inquest report as prepared under
Section 174 Cr.P.C., is not made on an incisive autopsy being made upon
the body of the deceased by the doctor concerned. Therefore, since only on
an incisive autopsy being made on the dead body of the deceased, thus the
relevant uncoverings do surgeforth, whereupons the post-mortem report
holds paramount efficacy vis-a-vis the preliminary findings recorded in the
inquest report drawn in terms of Section 174 Cr.P.C.
50. Emphatically when the above opinion made by the ballistic
expert, thus unfolds qua the user of the recovered firearm by the accused-
appellant. Thus irrefutably therebys the prosecution has proven, that the
accused had, through firing the apposite bullets from .32 bore revolver,
hence committed the double murder of the deceased (supra).
51. Importantly also since the relevant cloth parcels also travelled
in an untampered, and, unspoiled condition to the FSL concerned. Moreover,
reiteratedly when for the reasons (supra), this Court has assigned probative
sanctity to the signatured disclosure statement, and, to the consequent
thereto prepared recovery memo. Resultantly, the examination(s), as made
on the items enclosed in an untampered, and, unspoiled cloth parcels when
do clearly indicate the inculpatory role of the convict-appellant. Therefore,
as but a natural corollary thereof, this Court is of the firm view, that the
prosecution has been able to cogently establish the guilt of the accused-
appellant in the relevant crime event.
28 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -29-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
52. Even if in the inquest report, it is mentioned that only one fire
shot was fired upon deceased Surinder Kaur, whereas, in the post-mortem
report it becomes stated that three gun shot wounds were found to be
existing on the body of deceased Surinder Kaur. However, for the reasons to
be assigned hereinafter the said inter se discrepancy inter se the inquest
report, and, the post-mortem report yet does not belittle either the credible
eye witness account, nor does it belittle the evidentiary efficacy of the
recovery memo wherethrough the weapon of offence became recovered. The
reasons for stating so is comprised in the factum, that the inquest report
becomes drawn only on a preliminary examination being made of the body
of the deceased concerned, whereas, in the exercise of making an autopsy of
the body of the deceased concerned, the latter's body is surgically opened,
wherebys, it facilitates an intensive examination being made of the inner
regions of the body of the deceased. Since after an incisive surgical
examination being made of the inner regions of the body of deceased
Surinder Kaur, three gun shot wounds were found to be occurring thereons.
In sequel, preponderance is required to be assigned to the makings of the
incisive surgical examination of interior body of the deceased concerned,
thus by the doctor, than to a preliminary non-incisive non-surgical
methodology, as became adopted by PW-1 to discover the number of bullets
injuries on the body of the deceased.
53. Be that as it may, though the eye witness to the occurrence,
namely, Navdeep Kaur (PW-3), has admitted in her cross-examination, that
in her first statement to the police, she had stated that only one bullet
became fired by the convict-appellant upon her mother, from the
incriminatory firearm. Though therebys, there is a prima facie contradiction
29 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -30-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
with PW-1, who conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased Surinder
Kaur, who contrarily stated, that three fire shots were fired from the
recovered revolver. However, the said inter se discrepancy, does not yet
belittle the credible ocular account rendered by the eye witness, namely,
Navdeep Kaur (PW-3), as the shots were fired from the revolver, wherebys
with the bullets emanating therefrom, when do emanate in quick succession,
whereupon it becomes difficult for an eye witness to precisely count the
number of bullets fired from the revolver. In sequel, the discrepancy arising
from PW-3 admitting in her cross-examination that in her first statement to
the police, she had stated that only one bullet became fired by the appellant
from the recovered revolver, whereas, the post-mortem report detailing that
three fire shots became fired at the body of the deceased, besides with the
inquest report detailing that only one shot was fired upon the deceased,
rather does not acquire any consequent exculpatory effect, nor does the said
purported inter se discrepancy, benumbs the unbesmirched ocular account
rendered vis-a-vis the crime event by PW-2 and PW-3.
Further submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant
54. Though, the learned senior counsel has argued, that since the
investigating officer concerned, during the course of his cross-examination,
stated that two bullets, as were extracted from the body of deceased
Lovepreet Singh, were not sent for examinations thereof to the FSL
concerned, therebys he has argued that the ocular account rendered vis-a-vis
the crime event becomes eclipsed.
Reasons for rejecting the above submission
55. However, the said argument is rejected, as the non sending of
the bullets, extracted from the dead body of deceased Lovepreet Singh for
30 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -31-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
examinations thereof along with the firearm wherefrom it became fired, does
not render inconsequential rather the vivid credible ocular account rendered
vis-a-vis the crime event, especially when the firearm has been irrefutably
declared to be the one wherefrom the bullets became fired.
56. Thus, conjoint readings of the report of the doctor concerned,
who proved the apposite post-mortem reports of both the deceased
concerned, along with the efficaciously proven signatured disclosure
statement (supra) as made by the convict-appellant, besides also with the
consequent thereto made valid recovery through recovery memo (supra),
does therebys foster an inference, that therebys there is inter se
corroboration inter se the ocular account with the medical account and the
report of the ballistic expert, besides with the memos supra. In summa, this
Court finds no gross perversity or absurdity in the appreciation of the
adduced relevant evidence, as became made by the learned trial Judge
concerned.
57. Lastly, the non proof of motive by the prosecution looses its
vigour, thus on the ground, that the motive may be required to be proven in a
prosecution cases rested upon circumstantial evidence, but may not acquire
any efficacious proof qua thereto becoming adduced by the prosecution,
especially besides obviously when credible eye witness account became
rendered by the eye witnesses to the instant crime event. Therefore, the lack
of proof of motive by the prosecution becomes completely inconsequential.
58. Therefore, with the afore observations, the criminal appeal
(supra) filed by the convict-appellant is dismissed.
59. Insofar as CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 filed by the complainant is
concerned, since the instant case is not a rarest of the rare case, thus therebys
31 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -32-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
this Court is constrained to not impose capital punishment, upon the convict-
appellant. However, the imposition of the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- and
Rs. 7,000/- upon the accused-appellant qua commission of offence(s)
respectively under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, is extremely
minimal, and, is required to be enhanced, as the fine amount is required to be
on its realization disbursed to the family members of the deceased.
Therefore, CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 is allowed only to the extent, that the
above sentences of fine comprised in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 7,000/-,
as imposed upon the convict-appellant being ordered to be enhanced to
Rs. 50,000/- each. Further on realization of the said fine amount, the same
shall be disbursed as victim compensation to the family members of the
deceased. However, in default of payment of fine amount (supra), the
convict-appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Final Order
60. The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court does not
find any merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant, and, is constrained to
dismiss it. Consequently, CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 is dismissed. The
impugned verdict of conviction, as becomes recorded upon the convict-
appellant, by the learned convicting/Trial Court, is maintained, and,
affirmed. Moreover, the consequent thereto order of sentence is also
affirmed. If the convict is on bail, thereupon, the sentence as imposed upon
him, be ensured to be forthwith executed by the learned trial Judge
concerned, through his drawing committal warrants.
61. CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 preferred by the complainant is partly
allowed to the extent (supra).
32 of 33
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:152219-DB
CRA-D-1311-DB-2013 (O&M) -33-
CRA-D-1365-DB-2013 (O&M)
62. The case property be dealt with, in accordance with law, but
after the expiry of the period of limitation for the filing of an appeal.
63. Records be sent down forthwith.
64. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
November 20th, 2024
Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
33 of 33
