Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi And Anr vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 17468 Raj

                                        (1 of 17)                 [CRLA-371/2016]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
               D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 371/2016

1. Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi S/o Balvinder Singh, by caste Majbi
Sikh, R/o 18 L.L. W.B. Manuka, District Hanumangarh

2. Kalu Ram S/o Ram Chandra, by caste Jat, R/o 20 L.L. W.
District Hanumangarh
(At present lodged in Central Jail, Bikaner)
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Anil Joshi, P.P.



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

                                Judgment

Date of pronouncement : 23/11/2021

Judgment reserved on : 04/10/2021

BY THE COURT : PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.

The instant appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has

been preferred by the appellants Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and Kalu

Ram being aggrieved of the judgment dated 04.04.2016 passed

by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities),

Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.63/2013, whereby they have

been convicted and sentenced as under :-

Name of the Offence for Sentence awarded appellant which convicted Gurpreet Singh Section 302 Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of @ Gopi and 120-B IPC Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.

(2 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

Section 201/34 Seven years' rigorous imprisonment IPC alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo six months' simple imprisonment.

Kalu Ram Section 302 Life imprisonment alongwith a fine of and 120-B IPC Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.

Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of

the appeal are noted hereinbelow :

Naseeb Kaur (P.W.3) presented a typed report

(Ex.P/11) to the Station House Officer, Police Station,

Hanumangrh Junction on 06.07.2013 alleging inter alia that her

husband Harnek Singh went missing, whereupon her grandson

Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, adopted son of Harnek Singh (the

appellant No.1 herein) lodged a missing person report No.11/2013

at the Police Station Sadar, Hanumangarh on 02.07.2013. On

05.07.2013, she and her family members got a call from the

Police Station Suratgarh Sadar that a dead body had been found

in the canal, on which they went there and identified the dead

body to be of her missing husband Harnek Singh. She further

alleged that her husband had come to Hanumangarh Junction on

02.07.2013, whereafter her grandson Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi and

Kalu Ram came there on Kalu Ram's motorcycle No.RJ-07-7M-

2032. They took Harnek Singh with them to Sadul Branch Canal

with an intention to kill him and pushed him into the canal and

drowned him to death. Gurpreet Singh thereafter got the missing

person report lodged so that no one could doubt him. She prayed

that a case of murder be registered against Gurpreet Singh and

Kalu Ram and appropriate action be taken against them.

(3 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

On the basis of this report, an FIR No.392/2013

(Ex.P/34) came to be registered at the Police Station Sadar

Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302,

201 and 34 IPC (Ex.P/34). The investigation was undertaken by

Subhash Chandra Kachchhawa (P.W.14). The appellants were

arrested and after concluding investigation, charge-sheet came to

be filed against Gurpreet Singh for the offences under Sections

302 IPC in the alternative Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC

and against Kalu Ram for the offences under Sections 302 IPC in

the alternative Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC and

Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Since the offence under Section

3 of the SC/St Act was involved in the matter, the case was

committed to the Court of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities), Hanumangarh for trial. Charges were framed by the

trial court against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty

and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 18

witnesses and exhibited 64 documents to prove its case. Upon

being questioned under Section 313 CrPC and when confronted

with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution

evidence, the accused denied the same; claimed to be innocent

and alleged that they had been falsely implicated in the case.

After appreciating the arguments advanced by the defence counsel

and the learned Public Prosecutor and appreciating the evidence

available on record, the learned trial court proceeded to convict

and sentence the appellants as above. Hence, this appeal.

Mr. Hamir Singh Sidhu, learned counsel representing

the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the

(4 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. Mr. Harnek Singh

went missing somewhere around 01.07.2013. The appellant No.1

Gurpreet Singh, who is the adopted son of Harnek Singh, bonafide

lodged the missing person report (Ex.P/14) at the Police Station

Hanumangarh Sadar, on the basis whereof, inquiry was conducted.

The dead body of Mr. Harnek Singh was recovered on 03.07.2013

in the jurisdiction of Police Station Suratgarh Sadar and

proceedings under Section 174 CrPC (Ex.P/20) were initiated. The

dead body was severely decomposed and thus, it was impossible

for anyone to have identified the same. No plausible evidence was

collected regarding identification of the dead body by the relatives.

Mr. Sidhu urged that identification of the dead body of Harnek

Singh is doubtful because there is a discrepancy regarding the

colour of clothes which were found on the dead body vis-a-vis the

clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of his

disappearance. The prosecution could not collect any evidence

whatsoever to link the appellants with the crime, whereafter,

fabricated evidence of extra-judicial confession was created at the

instance of Mahendra Singh, son-in-law of the deceased, because

he was a landless man and he was bearing a grudge that all

properties of the deceased would devolve on the appellant No.1

Gurpreet Singh. On the basis of this cooked up extra-judicial

confession, the appellants were roped into the case. There is no

evidence worth the name on the record of the case to connect the

accused Kalu Ram with the crime, but inspite thereof, he was

involved in the case. The evidence of the so-called witness of last

seen Harphool Singh (P.W.9) is totally unreliable because his

statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded on 01.08.2013,

(5 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

i.e. almost one month after the incident. His silence for such a

long time makes his testimony doubtable. He, thus, urges that

the appreciation of the evidence as undertaken by the trial court

concluding that the appellants are liable to be convicted for the

murder of Harnek Singh is totally perverse and arbitrary and that

the appellants have been held guilty in this case without their

being any plausible evidence to support the prosecution case.

He, thus, implored the court to accept the appeal, set aside the

impugned judgment and acquit the appellants of the charges.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants'

counsel. He contended that the appellant Gurpreet Singh stood to

gain significantly from the death of Harnek Singh. He had been

adopted by Harnek Singh and was having an evil eye on the

properties of the old man Gurpreet Singh apprehended that

Harnek Singh might bequeath his properties to his daughters and

that is why, he conspired with the accused Kalu Ram and hatched

a conspiracy to eliminate Harnek Singh. In furtherance of this

conspiracy, the two appellants took away the deceased from his

house on 01.07.2013. The old man was taken to the canal and

was drowned by pushing him into the flowing water. He urged

that the accused Gurpreet Singh was suspected of foul play and

upon being put to stern questioning, he blurted out an extra

judicial confession before the witnesses Nikka Singh (P.W.1) and

Mahendra Singh (P.W.2) stating that he had eliminated Harnek

Singh in order to gain his properties. He further urged that

Harphool Singh (P.W.9) gave convincing evidence on the aspect

(6 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

that he saw Kalu Ram and Gopi taking Harnek Singh with them on

a motorcycle. He, thus, urged that as the deceased was last seen

in the company of the accused appellants soon before he was

murdered, the appellants were under an obligation to explain the

circumstances under which, Harnek Singh drowned in the canal.

He vehemently urged that the appreciation of evidence as

undertaken by the trial court is apposite on all aspects and the

impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity

whatsoever. On these submissions, learned Public Prosecutor,

urged that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the

submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the

impugned judgment and the record.

Manifestly, the case of the prosecution is based purely

on circumstantial evidence. The material prosecution witnesses

have imputed that the appellant Gurpreet Singh, being the

adopted son of the deceased Harnek Singh, was keeping an evil

eye on the properties of the old man and thus, he conspired with

the co-accused Kalu Ram and in furtherance of such design,

Harnek Singh was taken away from his house and was pushed into

the canal. There is no witness who actually saw the deceased

being pushed into the canal. The prosecution relies upon the

following three circumstances so as to prove its case:

(i)     Motive.

(ii)    Last Seen.

(iii)   Extra Judicial Confession.





                                            (7 of 17)                   [CRLA-371/2016]

As has been stated above, the theory of motive has

been imputed to the accused Gurpreet on the premise that

the elimination of Harnek Singh would lead to the automatic

consequence of his properties devolving upon the accused.

However, it is relevant to state here that there is a significant

glitch in this theory because Harnek Singh had four

daughters. Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2), who was married to

one of the daughters of Harnek Singh, was a landless man

and he too had a craving for the properties of the deceased.

Manifestly, if Harnek Singh expired intestate, his properties

would devolve equally amongst all his legal heirs. The

appellant being the adopted son, would get just a part out of

these properties. It is relevant to mention here that the

appellant had been adopted by his maternal grandfather Shri

Harnek Singh vide the Adoption Deed (Ex.P/50) dated

06.04.2011 and from then onwards, till the date of the

incident, no complaint had been made at any quarter that the

appellant was ever observed making any attempt to maltreat

or wsa trying to eliminate the deceased for gaining his

properties.

Nikka Singh (P.W.1), one of the son-in-laws of

Harnek Singh, was examined as P.W.1. He alleged that his

father-in-law refused to give his property to Gurpreet Singh

and announced that he would be dividing the same amongst

his four daughters. He also alleged that the dead body of

(8 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

Harnek Singh was identified at Suratgarh Police Station and

then, the cremation was conducted. On the next day, a

Panchayat was convened, in which, Gurpreet Singh confessed

that he had thrown Harnek Singh into the canal. In cross-

examination, the witness admitted that immediately after the

cremation, he went back to his village with his family

members. He stated that whatever deposition he had made

in the court, was on the instructions of Mahendra Singh.

Mahendra Singh, another son-in-law of Harnek

Singh, was examined as P.W.2. He stated that his father-in-

law went missing on 01.07.2013, on which, Gurpreet Singh

(the appellant herein) came to him and made an enquiry.

Gurpreet Singh then lodged a Missing Person Report. He,

Gopi and his three brother-in-laws looked out for Harnek

Singh. A call was received from the Suratgarh Police Station

regarding a dead body. He and his family members went

there and identified the same to be of Harnek Singh. The

body was handed over to them and they cremated it. Then a

Panchayat was convened, in which, the accused Gurpreet

Singh was put to stringent questioning, on which, he

confessed that he and Kalu had thrown Harnek Singh into the

canal apprehending that his adoptive father (Harnek Singh)

might give the properties to his aunts. In cross examination,

the witness admitted that he did not own any land. He

instructed Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi to get the Missing

Person Report lodged. When they were asked to identify

(9 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

the body, the face was totally decomposed. He was

continuously in touch with Gurpreet Singh from 02.07.2013

to 05.07.2013 but during these days, Gurpreet Singh did not

tell him anything. His father-in-law owned four bighas of land

near the canal. The value of the land was about Rs.8 to 10

lakhs a bigha. A specific suggestion was given to the witness

that he had falsely implicated Gurpreet Singh in this case so

as to eliminate him from claiming a share in Harnek Singh's

land. The witness denied the suggestion.

Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 3) stated that Gurpreet Singh

and Kalu took away her husband Harnek Singh with them and

pushed him into the canal. She lodged a report at the Police

Station Hanumangarh. A Panchayat was convened, in which,

Gurpreet Singh confessed that he and Kalu killed 'Papa'

(Harnek Singh). The dead body was recovered by Suratgarh

police and was identified to be of Harnek Singh. When she

lodged the Missing Person Report, her sons-in-law Mahendra

Singh, Nikka Singh and Harbans were with her. Gurpreet

Singh was apprehensive that Harnek Singh might give his

land to his daughters. In cross examination, the witness

admitted that she could not say as to when the report was

lodged. The boys got the report lodged. She could not say

about the contents of the report. The dead body was

cremated at about 3 O'clock. Mahendra Singh got the report

typed. She submitted the report at the Police Station at about

4 O'clock. A Panchayat was held at her house after the

(10 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

funeral and the accused Gurpreet Singh was threatened that

he should tell the truth, else he would be given to the police.

Because of the threats and under fear, Gurpreet Singh

admitted his guilt.

Mahendra Singh, Nikka Singh, Harbans and many

other villagers were present in the Panchayat. She admitted

that all the police proceedings were undertaken under the

guidance of Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2) and Nikka Singh

(P.W.1). They consulted amongst each other and decided

what statement was to be given. Mahendra Singh and others

were annoyed when Gurpreet Singh was taken in adoption. It

was decided that all the land would be given to him. All her

legal heirs were agreeable to this conclusion. She was

confronted with the typed written report (Ex.P/11) and her

police statement (Ex.D/1), wherein no allegation whatsoever

was made regarding the alleged extra-judicial confession.

The relevant extracts from the statement of the

witness, which would have a material bearing on the outcome

of the case are reproduced hereinbelow :-

"geus 3 cts laLdkj dj fn;k FkkA esjs dks ugha irk "kjhj dks vkx fdlus nhA eq>s lq/k ugha FkhA laLdkj ds ckn ge Fkkus x;s FksA fQj dgk fd laLdkj ls igys ge Fkkus vk x;s FksA ;g nj[kkLr ExP11 odhy ;k tt us fy[kh Fkh eq>s ugha irkA esjs tekbZ nj[kkLr fy[kk dj yk;k FkkA egsUnz flag esjk tekbZ nj[kkLr fy[kkdj yk;k FkkA nj[kkLr esa D;k fy[kk Fkk eSa ugha crk ldrhA egsUnz flag us eq>s ;g crk;k fd esjh tku dks [krjk gS o esjh lqj{kk dh tkos ;g nj[kkLr esa fy[kk gSA ;s nj[kkLr Fkkus esa 4 cts is"k dh FkhA bl nj[kkLr dks nsus ds ckn nkg laLdkj gqvk FkkA iapk;r esa xkao ds dbZ vkneh FkhA eSa Hkh iapk;r esa FkhA laLdkj ds ckn "kke dks gekjs ?kj ij iapk;r gq;h FkhA ftlesa eqfYte xqjizhr dks Mjk;k Fkk fd lgh ckr crk ns ugha rks ge rq>s iqfyl esa idM+k;saxsA Mjkus o

(11 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

/kedkus ls xqjizhr us viuh xyrh ekuh FkhA ml fnu 7&8 ct x;s FksA iapk;r esa egsUnz flag] fuDdk flag] gjcal flag o dbZ vkSj xkao ds yksx FksA ftl oDr iapk;r gq;h eSa o ?kj dh vU; vkSjrsa ?kj esa "kksd foyki dj jgs Fks o iapk;r xyh esa gks jgh FkhA egsUnz] fuDdk o gjcal oxSjg us vkdj eq>s crk;k fd iapk;r esa xqjizhr us xyrh Lohdkjh gSA vxj xqjizhr us vius tqeZ bdcky esa fnuakd] le; o LFkku dh tkudkjh nh gksrh rks eSa esjs c;ku esa t:j crkrh o ugha egsUnz o fuDdk us le; o LFkku o fnukad ds ckjs esa crk;k ek= bruk gh crk;k Fkk fd ugj esa /kDdk nsdj ekj fn;k FkkA essjs iqfyl us ipkZ okys fnu gh ?kj ij c;ku fy;s Fks tks 5 ,d cts fy;s FksA xqjizhr dks xksn ysus ls iwoZ fj"rsnkjksa ls jk; yh FkhA eq>s ;kn ugha fd fdu&fdu fj"rsnkjksa ls jk; yh FkhA bl ckcr v[k.M ikB Hkh djk;k FkkA egsUnz o fuDdk us iqfyl dh enn dh Fkh o iqfyl dk;Zokgh dks bUgksaus gh laHkkyk FkkA mUgksaus ftl izdkj o tgka c;ku djus Fks oks lHkh dks crk;k FkkA esjs eftLVªsV ds le{k 164 CrPC ds c;ku gq;s FksA esjs 164 ds c;ku ds le; eSa o egsUnz c;ku nsus vk;s FksA geus vkil esa jk; dj yh Fkh fd D;k c;ku nsus gSA egsUnz flag oxSjg dks ukjktxh Fkh fd ge xqjizhr dks xksn ysdj tehu mlds uke dj nsxsAa "

The last witness on which the prosecution banked

upon so as to bring home the charges is Harphool Singh (P.W.

9), who gave evidence of last seen in his testimony. The

statement of this witness was recorded on 31.08.2014. He

alleged that about one year and nine months ago, he was

proceeding on his tractor. When he reached near the

Ganganagar Phatak, Kalu, Gopi and Harnek Singh met him.

Gopi was driving the motorcycle wearing a helmet with its

visor removed. The witness called Gopi, but he did not hear

his voice. Harnek Singh was sitting behind Gopi and Kalu

Ram was sitting at the last. In the next morning, he came to

know that Harnek Singh had passed away. He went to the

house of Gopi, but later stated on his own that Gopi came to

his house and told him that his grandfather had been missing

since 11 O'clock. In cross examination, the witness admitted

(12 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

that Harnek Singh was his uncle, as his father and Harnek

Singh were brothers. Harnek Singh was wearing a carrot

coloured kurta-pajama, when he last saw him. His police

statement was recorded on 01.08.2013.

The evidence of these four witnesses forms the

sum and substance of the allegations on which, the case of

the prosecution is based.

First, we evaluate the evidence of Harphool Singh

(P.W. 9). The witness is the nephew of the deceased. His

evidence is ex-facie unbelievable because he stated that he

saw the two accused taking Harnek Singh with them on the

motorcycle about one year and nine months before the date

of deposition. This period would coincide with January 2013.

However, the incident took place in July, 2013. Furthermore,

the witness alleged that in the very next morning, he

came to know that Harnek Singh had passed away. The

fact remains that an unidentified dead body was recovered in

the jurisdiction of Suratgarh Police Station on 03.07.2013 and

was identified by the relatives as being that of Harnek Singh

for the first time on 05.07.2013. Thus, the claim of the

witness that he got information regarding the death of

Harnek Singh on the very next day after he had seen the

deceased in the company of the two accused, is totally

unacceptable. In addition thereto, despite being a close

relative of the deceased and having come to know of his

homicidal death, the witness kept silent regarding his claim of

(13 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

having lastly seen the accused and the deceased together

and his statement (Ex.D/4) was recorded as late as on

01.08.2013 i.e. after nearly one month of the incident. Thus,

the evidence of Harphool Singh (P.W.9) is not believable and

he is not a reliable witness.

The other set of evidence which was relied upon by

the trial court so as to connect the accused-appellant with the

crime was in the form of extra-judicial confession.

Before proceeding to discuss the evidence of extra

judicial confession, it would be fruitful to reproduce the

contents of typed report (Ex.P/11), which was got prepared

by Mahendra Singh (P.W.2) and submitted with the thumb

impression of Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 3):

"fo'k; %& gR;k dk eqdnek ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus ckcrA

egksn;]

mijksDr fo'k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ;k ulhc dkSj iRuh gjusd flag tkfr etch fl[k fuoklh pd 18 ,y,yMCY;w-ch- fuoklh ek.kqdk dh jgus okyh gSA Jheku~th izkFkhZ;k dk ifr gjusd flag dh fnukad 2-7-2013 dks izkFkhZ;k ds nksfgrs xqjizhr flag mQZ xksih us iqfyl Fkkuk lnj esa xqe"kqnxh fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ FkhA Jheku~th gesa dy fnukad 5-7-2013 dks lwjrx<+ lnj Fkkuk ls Qksu vk;k fd ,d O;fDr dh yk"k ugj esa feyh gS ftl ij ge ogka x;s rks mDr yk"k izkFkhZ;k dh ifr gjusd flag dh FkhA Jheku~th izkFkhZ;k dk ifr fnukad 2-7-2013 dks guqekux<+ taD"ku vk;k Fkk rHkh izkFkhZ;k dk nksfgrk xqjizhr flag mQZ xksih fuoklh pd 18 ,y,yMCY;[email protected] o dkyqjke iq= jkepUnz tkfr tkV fuoklh pd 20 ,y,yMCY;w- dkyqjke ds eksVjlkbZfdy ua- vkjts07&7,e&2032 ij guqekux<+ taD"ku vk;s o gjusd flag dks eksVjlkbZfdy ij p<+kdj lknqy czkap ugj ij ys x;s o mldh gR;k djus ds bjkns ls gjusd flag dks ugj esa fxjk fn;k ftlls gjusd flag dh e`R;q gks xbZA Jheku~th xqjizhr flag us Lo;a us gh lnj iqfyl Fkkuk guqekux<+ taD"ku esa gjusd flag dh xqe"kqnxh ntZ djok nh rkfd ml ij dksbZ "kd u djsA

(14 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

vr% izkFkZuk i= is"k dj fuosnu gS fd vki xqjizhr flag mQZ xksih o dkyqjke iq= jkepUnz ds fo:) gR;k dk eqdnek ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgha djsaA vkidh vfr d`ik gksxhA"

From the sequence of events, which we have

narrated after analysing the evidence of Nikka Singh (P.W. 1)

and Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2), the witnesses of the so called

extra judicial confession, it becomes clear that the body of

Harnek Singh was identified by the relatives on 05.07.2013.

It was handed over to the relatives on the same day and the

FIR came to be registered after the cremation. In that very

sequence after lodging of the FIR, a Panchayat was convened

in the late hours, where for the first time, Gurpreet Singh @

Gopi allegedly confessed that he and Kalu had killed Harnek

Singh by throwing him into the canal. A perusal of the typed

report indicates that even before the so called extra judicial

confession had been made by the accused Gurpreet,

aspersions were made in the written report (Ex.P/11) that

Kalu and Gurpreet took Harnek Singh with them on the

motorcycle to the Sardul Branch Canal and pushed him into

it. As before the so called extra-judicial confession being

made, neither the first informant Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 3) nor

Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2) had any inkling regarding the

manner in which, Harnek Singh died, the detailed narration of

such facts in the FIR clearly makes it apparent that the family

members conferred with each other to create this story and

thereafter the theory of extra judicial confession was

concocted so as to implicate the accused Gurpreet Singh for

(15 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

the death of Harnek Singh. There is another grave

contradiction regarding the theory of extra judicial

confession. Nikka Singh (P.W. 1) also stated that Gurpreet

Singh confessed before the Panchayat that he had thrown the

deceased into the canal. The Panchayat was held after the

last rites had been performed. However, in cross examination,

Nikka Singh (P.W. 1) admitted that the funeral took place at

about 11-11:15 a.m. and immediately thereafter, he took his

family members to his village. He also admitted that

whatever statement he had given, was made on the

instruction of his brother-in-law Mahendra Singh (P.W.2), who

also gave evidence of the so called extra judicial confession.

Mahendra Singh admitted in cross-examination that he could

not say as to when Gurpreet Singh made the so called extra

judicial confession. If the sequence of events as narrated

above is seen, apparently, the evidence of extra judicial

confession is nothing, but a piece of fabrication. It is

manifest that Mahendra Singh (P.W. 2) (who had an eye on

the properties of Harnek Singh) created a totally fictitious

story regarding the sequence of events leading to the death

of Harnek Singh. The details were crafted by Mahendra Singh

in tyeped report (Ex.P/11) and allegation of murder was

thrust down upon the accused Gurpreet Singh by way of the

extra judicial confession.

Naseeb Kaur (P.W. 3) admitted in her cross

examination (supra) that the Panchayat took place at her

(16 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

house in the evening after the funeral and there the accused

Gurpreet Singh was threatened and was coerced, whereafter

he made the extra judicial confession. Therefore, also, the

evidence of extra judicial confession is unreliable because

even if, it is assumed for the argument's sake that any such

extra judicial confession was made, then also, the same was

extracted under threat, duress and coercion.

That apart, so far as the accused appellant Kalu

Ram is concerned, he cannot be held guilty on the strength of

extra judicial confession made by the accused Gurpreet

Singh. Reference in this regard can be made to the Supreme

Court Judgment Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs.

State of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184.

In wake of the discussion made herein above, we

are of the firm view that the prosecution has failed to prove

even a single of the so-called three incriminating

circumstances, i.e. (i) motive, (ii) last seen and (iii) extra

judicial confession, so as to seek affirmation of the impugned

judgment and for sustaining the conviction of the accused-

appellants. The impugned judgment is based on a

perfunctory appreciation of evidence and the findings

recorded therein are sheerly conjectural in nature. Hence, the

same cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be, and is hereby,

allowed. The impugned judgment dated 04.04.2016 passed by

the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities),

(17 of 17) [CRLA-371/2016]

Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.63/2013 is hereby quashed

and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of all the

charges. The appellant Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi S/o Balvinder

Singh shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any

other case. The appellant Kalu Ram S/o Ram Chandra is on bail.

He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.

However, keeping in view the provisions of Section

437-A CrPC, each of the appellants is directed to furnish a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- and a surety bond in the

like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective

for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of

a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment, on receipt

of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme

Court.

                                   (RAMESHWAR VYAS),J                                     (SANDEEP MEHTA),J


                                    Pramod/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)