Punjab-Haryana High Court
Komalpreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 January, 2025
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
CRA-AD-215-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-AD-215-2024
Reserved on : 14.10.2024
Date of Decision: 10.01.2025
Komalpreet Kaur ....Appellant.
versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
---
Argued by: Mr. Gurmohan Preet Singh, Advocate
Mr. Navraj Narang, Advocate and
Mr. Khushpal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Sullar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.
This appeal against acquittal is directed against the judgment of
the Trial Court dated 21.05.2024, whereby the respondents have been
acquitted in FIR No.102 dated 05.08.2019 under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC,
registered at Police Station Makhu.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Trial
Court has erred in acquitting respondents No.2 to 4 although there was
clinching evidence warranting their conviction in the form of statement of the
appellant/complainant, who was examined as PW-1 and is also the daughter
of deceased-Sarwan Singh. She had categorically deposed with regard to the
1 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
involvement of respondents No.2 to 4, who include her mother in the
commission of the crime. Her statement was corroborated by PW-3 Harjinder
Singh and PW-9 Gurdev Singh. Moreover, recovery of rope and motorcycle,
which was used to throw the body of the deceased in the lake, had been
effected from the accused in terms of their statements, which is strong
evidence pointing towards their guilt. He also submitted that the chain of
circumstances is complete and it points to the only conclusion i.e. towards the
guilt of the accused. He has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court
in the cases of Deonandan Mishra vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801,
Mani Kumar Thapa vs. State of Sikkim, (2002) 7 SCC 157 and Ramjee
Rai vs. State of Bihar (2006) 13 SCC 229.
3. Heard.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant had made a
statement to the police to the effect that she has an elder married sister and
two younger brothers. Her youngest brother-Arshdeep Singh was studying in
class 8th in a Government School and after school, he used to work at the AC
repair shop of Rajinder Singh @ Thind son of Santokh Singh (respondent
No.3) and Sukhwinder Singh son of Bakshish Singh (respondent No.4), which
was situated near Railway Crossing, Makhu. Both of them would drop her
brother back home and would often visit their house and they had developed
illicit relations with the accused-Baljit Kaur (respondent No.2), who is the
mother of the complainant. The deceased had a sawmill at the house and was
working as a carpenter, making doors and windows. Her mother Baljit Kaur
used to often quarrel with her father. On the night intervening 28/29.07.2019
2 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
after having meals, while she and her brother were sleeping in one room and
her parents were sleeping in another room, her mother had called Rajinder
Singh @ Thind and Sukhwinder Singh to their house. On hearing some noise,
she woke up and while sneaking through the curtains noticed that Rajinder
Singh @ Thind and Sukhwinder Singh along with her mother Baljit Kaur
were wrapping her father in the cover of a quilt and tying him with a rope and
pulling it outside. She thereafter went back to sleep and in the morning
enquired about her father from her mother, who told her that he had gone to
Himachal. She later went to her uncle's house and narrated the entire incident
to him and when they could not locate her father, they suspected that her
mother in connivance with Rajinder Singh @ Thind and Sukhwinder Singh
had murdered her father by strangulating him. She also stated that the motive
was that her mother-Baljit Kaur and Rajinder Singh @ Thind had developed
illicit relations which were opposed by her father and so Baljit Kaur in
connivance with Rajinder Singh @ Thind and Sukhwinder Singh had
murdered her father. The appellant who was examined as PW-1, in her
deposition supported the prosecution version as stated in the complaint.
5. The prosecution also examined PW-3 Harjinder Singh, who is
the brother of the deceased. He had stated that he was labourer by profession
and on 29.07.2019, his niece came to him and disclosed that her mother-Baljit
Kaur along with Rajinder Singh @ Thind and Sukhwinder Singh had
strangulated her father, covered his dead body in the cover of a quilt and she
had witnessed this. When he enquired about his brother from Baljit Kaur, she
told him that he had gone to Himachal Pradesh. They started searching for
him but to no avail and he suspected that Baljit Kaur along with Rajinder
3 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
Singh @ Thind and Sukhwinder Singh had killed his brother as she had illicit
relations with Rajinder Singh @ Thind.
6. PW-9 Gurdev Singh, who is the cousin of the deceased, had
stated that he lives in the house adjoining the house of the deceased and the
younger son of the deceased namely Arshdeep Singh used to go to AC repair
shop after school and Rajinder Singh @ Thind and Sukhwinder Singh used to
drop him home due to which Baljit Kaur developed illicit relations with them
which was disclosed to him by complainant (PW-1) and PW-3 Harjinder
Singh. The complainant also told him that on the night intervening
28/29.07.2019, she was sleeping with her brother in one room while her
parents were sleeping in another room and when she had woken up, she saw
that all three accused after killing the deceased, had wrapped his body in a
quilt cover and then took him on a motorcycle.
7. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had
denied the allegations and pleaded innocence.
8. Respondent No.2 had stated that she had been falsely implicated
in the case of murder of her husband. Her husband Sarwan Singh was alive
and a false case has been registered against her by PW-3 Harjinder Singh as
he wants to grab the property of her husband.
9. Respondent No.3 had pleaded innocence and stated that he has
been falsely implicated in the present case and false recovery has been planted
upon him. He has no relations with accused-Baljit Kaur. Recovery of
motorcycle was not effected from him and he did not give any statement to
the police record any concession. He was not arrested by the police from
Railway Station Joge Wala, rather he was arrested from his house. He did not
4 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
commit the murder of Sarwan Singh and Sarwan Singh is still alive. False
case has been registered by Harjinder Singh as he wants to grab the property
of the deceased. He does not know Baljit Kaur and her family members and
her son Arshdeep Singh never worked with him.
10. Respondent No.4 also pleaded his innocence and false
implication. No recovery was effected from him and false recovery has been
planted upon him. He had no relations with accused-Baljit Kaur. He was not
arrested by the police from Railway Station Joge Wala, rather he was arrested
from his house. He did not commit the murder of Sarwan Singh and Sarwan
Singh is still alive. False case has been registered by Harjinder Singh as he
wants to grab the property of the deceased. He does not know Baljit Kaur and
her family members and her son Arshdeep Singh had never worked with him.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
11. The Trial Court after examining all the evidence had acquitted
the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 of all the charges levelled against them. It
is apparent that there is delay of about a week in lodging the FIR as, though
the incident is stated to have taken place in the night intervening
28/29.07.2019 and witnessed by the complainant, who is the daughter of the
deceased, the FIR had been lodged only on 05.08.2019. It is true that mere
delay in lodging the FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case, but in the
event of delay of a week in reporting the matter to the police, the delay ought
to have been satisfactorily explained. In the instant case, there does not appear
to be any satisfactory explanation in this regard. The delay in lodging the FIR
is a significant dent in the prosecution case especially when it is seen in light
of the evidence of the complainant, who is stated to be an eyewitness. The
5 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
complainant is the daughter of the deceased and she stated that she had
witnessed the occurrence at night inasmuch as she saw the accused wrapping
the body of her deceased father in a quilt cover and pulling it with a rope, but
she does not inform the police for a week. She had even stated that she was
told by her mother that her father had gone to Himachal and they had tried to
locate him and only on their failure to do so, she had lodged the FIR. This
conduct is wholly unnatural as no daughter, who has seen the body of her
father being wrapped in a quilt cover and being taken away by the accused,
would wait for a week before informing the police. She herself had witnessed
the occurrence and, therefore, there was no occasion for her to ask her mother
about the whereabouts of her father and to believe her when she said that he
had gone to Himachal.
12. Furthermore, the statements of PW-3 Harjinder Singh and PW-9
Gurdev Singh do not help the prosecution's case for the reason that PW-3 had
only stated that he was informed by the complainant about the incident and
later they had tried to enquire about the whereabouts of his brother from Baljit
Kaur, who told him that her husband had gone to Himachal. They started
searching for him and when they could not found him, it came to their
knowledge that Baljit Kaur along with two other accused had killed his
brother. He is undoubtedly not an eyewitness and is merely narrating what has
been told to him by the complainant and others. The evidence of the
complainant as already discussed hereinbefore is full of contradictions and is
unworthy of credence.
13. PW-9 Gurdev Singh had also deposed that he lives in the house
adjoining the house of the deceased. He also had had been told about the
6 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
incident by complainant (PW-1). He stated that Arshdeep Singh (son of
deceased) used to work in the AC repair shop and accused Rajinder Singh @
Thind and Sukhwinder Singh used to drop him home, due to which they
developed illicit relations which was disclosed to him by complainant-
Komalpreet Kaur. PW-9 is also not an eyewitness, he is merely stating what
had been disclosed to him by PW-1 and therefore he has led hearsay evidence
which in the attendant facts and circumstances pales into insignificance.
14. The prosecution is also relying upon circumstantial evidence as it
is alleged that respondent No.2 was in illicit relationship with Rajinder Singh
@ Thind and call records, indicating that they were both in touch with each
other, had been placed on record. However, the location of the two at the time
of the incident i.e. on the night intervening 28/29.07.2019 appears to be at
different places. The exchange of calls, which were at times at odd hours,
could only be a pointer towards an illicit relationship between respondent
No.2-Baljit Kaur and respondent No.3-Rajinder Singh @ Thind, but that by
itself would be insufficient to drive home the guilt of respondents No.2 to 4.
Illicit relations may raise suspicion, but mere suspicion without cogent
incriminating evidence would not be sufficient to warrant a conviction.
Reference can be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in
Ravishankar Tandon vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) 4 S.C.R. 558.
Relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
"10. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong it may be,
cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An
accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no
matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent
unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
15. It is significant to note that the body of the deceased has not been
7 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
found despite concerted efforts in that regard. In the absence of corpus delicti,
it would be necessary to carefully examine the prosecution evidence and only
in the event of clinching evidence, the conviction of the accused would be
warranted. The prosecution has relied upon the disclosure statements of the
accused, which led to the recovery of the rope and motorcycle. However,
even with regard to the recoveries of rope and motorcycle and the manner in
which the deceased was killed, there are material discrepancies and
contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1 Komalpreet
Kaur and PW-3 Harjinder Singh had stated that deceased had been done away
with the help of a rope, whereas PW-9 Gurdev Singh had stated that deceased
was killed after being stabbed. Moreover, the recovery of the rope by itself
cannot lead to the inference with regard to its use in the commission of the
crime. Rope is a common material and which is available freely. Reference
can be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusal
Toppo and another vs. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 13 SCC 676, wherein it
was held that mere recovery of a rope, which is a common material and freely
available in market or every household, would not be sufficient unless there
was further evidence to link the rope with the crime including report on
forensic aspect of fiber or any recovered strands. In the case at hand, there
does not appear to be any forensic evidence to indicate that the rope, which
was recovered, had been used in the commission of the crime.
16. The judgements relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are
distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the instant case. There is no
denying the proposition of law laid therein. In Deonand Mishra (supra) the
Supreme Court had held that in a case of circumstantial evidence not only
8 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but
the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the
innocence of the accused.
17. In that case, the appellant who was accused of having murdered
his second wife was the last person to have been seen with the deceased prior
to her death. He was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation as to how he
parted company with her although they had travelled together in the train to
Gaya. The murder weapon which was a knife was found just by the side of the
head of the deceased stained with blood. The accused who was arrested two
and a half days after the murder had simple injuries on his hand and the knees
which were unexplained. It was in such circumstances that the case against
the appellant therein was established.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has also relied on
the judgments in Mani Kumar Thapa and Ramjee Rai's cases (supra) to
argue that it is a well-settled principle in law that in a trial for murder, it is
neither an absolute necessity nor an essential ingredient to establish corpus
delicti.
19. It is true that in some cases it may not be possible to trace or
recover the body or remains of the deceased due to several reasons and if the
recovery of the dead body was held to be mandatory to convict an accused,
the accused would make sure that the dead body is destroyed without any
trace so as to make him immune from being convicted.
20. However, what is required in law to base a conviction for an
offence of murder is that there should be reliable and plausible evidence that
the offence of murder was committed and the same must be proved by direct
9 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
or circumstantial evidence albeit the dead body may not be traced. Reference
can be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sevaka
Perumal v. State of T.N. (1991) 3 SCC 471. The relevant extract is
reproduced hereunder:-
"In a trial for murder it is not an absolute necessity or an
essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of death
of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus
delicti in some cases may not be possible to be traced or
recovered. Take for instance that a murder was committed and
the dead body was thrown into flowing tidal river or steam or
burnt out. It is unlikely that the dead body may be recovered. If
recovery of the dead body, therefore, is an absolute necessity to
convict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage to
see that the dead body is destroyed etc. and would afford a
complete immunity to the guilty from being punished and would
escape even when the offence of murder is proved. What,
therefore, is required to base a conviction for an offence of
murder is that there should be reliable and acceptable evidence
that the offence of murder, like any other factum, of death was
committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial
evidence, although the dead body may not be traced."
21. In Mani Kumar Thapa's case (supra), the prosecution had led
sufficient evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased
was last seen in a Jeep with the accused by multiple witnesses. The accused
had given contradictory version about his whereabouts on the day in question.
22. In the case of Ramjee Rai (supra), the links in the chain of
circumstances were complete inasmuch as the prosecution had brought on
record sufficient evidence to prove that the assailants had arrived on a boat,
assaulted the deceased and carried away his dead body; PW-3 who was the
complainant/informant, had lodged the FIR at the earliest possible
opportunity. The informant had categorically stated that he not only saw the
deceased being assaulted, he at the first opportunity jumped from the boat,
swam across the dhab and the next morning he went to Danapur Police
10 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
Station on a boat and lodged the FIR. Apart from the complainant, there were
at least three other witnesses who had seen the deceased being attacked by the
accused.
22. The principles pertaining to conviction in cases of circumstantial
evidence have been culled out by the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. The
relevant extract is being reproduced hereunder:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established.
xx xx xx
xx xx xx
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to
leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial
evidence."
These principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in
the case of Ravishankar Tandon's case (supra).
CONCLUSION
11 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
23. It is manifest that in the instant case, the prosecution has
completely failed to establish the chain of incriminating circumstances
pointing to the guilt of the accused. There was a delay of seven days in
lodging the FIR and no plausible explanation has been offered as to why it
took her so long, despite allegedly having seen her mother and her paramours
take away the body of her father in the dead of the night. The body of the
deceased has not been recovered and the statement of the complainant, who is
a star witness, is replete with material contradictions. Furthermore, the
testimony of the other public witnesses is merely a reiteration of what the
complainant allegedly witnessed. No credible forensic evidence in terms of
hair or blood or any other evidence, has been led by the prosecution to show
that the deceased was done to death or that his body was taken away on the
motorcycle. Thus, the evidence led by the prosecution as discussed in the
foregoing paragraphs is too sketchy to warrant conviction of the accused.
24. It is trite that the judgment of acquittal would not be lightly
interfered by the Appellate Court as the presumption of innocence of the
accused is reinforced by a judgment of acquittal. Even if another view is
possible on appreciation of evidence, the finding of acquittal would prevail.
Reference can be made to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415. The
relevant extract thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of appellate
Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge;
(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded;
12 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002549-DB
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling
reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong
circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the
reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than
to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him
under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that
every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused
having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of
the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
25. We are, therefore, of the considered view that judgment of
acquittal appears to be well reasoned and based upon proper appreciation of
evidence as the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE
10.01.2025
jitender
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
13 of 13
