Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Singh vs State Ofpb on 10 March, 2025
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill, Jasjit Singh Bedi
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 10.03.2025
Narinder Singh and another ... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae, for the appellants.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. Appellants Narinder Singh and Inderjit Kumar assail judgment dated
04.02.2005 passed by by Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby they have been
held guilty and sentenced as under:-
Section Sentence
302/34 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- or in default thereof to undergo further R.I.
for one year
201 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to
pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default thereof to undergo
further R.I. for one year
2. The matter arises out of FIR No. 73 dated 16.3.2003, Police Station Model
Town, Ludhiana, under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC (Ex.PW-10/B), lodged on
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) -2-
the statement/ruqa (Ex.PD) of complainant Ghurbhej Singh. The translated
gist of statement (Ex.PD) reads as under:
“I am a resident of above mentioned address. I have made a
godown/office for storing shuttering material on Dugri road under the
name and style of Ludhiana Steel Shuttering. I have employed Giana
Parshad for looking after the godown since the last five years. After
closing down the godown/office in the evening we leave from the said
premises while Giana Parshad remains there to look after the entire
premises. Today at about 10:30 AM my manager Subhash Chander
Sharma informed me that the shutters of godown and office are closed
and despite knocking at the shutter, there was no response from inside
and that Giana Parshad was not present there. Immediately after
taking Subhash Chander Sharma along I rushed to the godown and
saw that Giana Parshad was not there. However, a blood stained
hammer and a small dagger were lying there near his cot and blood
was also seen spilled there. On suspicion we searched the entire
godown and the dead body of Giana Parshad chowkidar was found
lying on the roof of office. He had been killed on the ground floor by
some unknown person during night and his dead body had been
thrown on the roof so as to conceal the same. I left Subhash Chander
at the spot and have come for lodging the report.
-Sd-
Gurbhej Singh Chhabra”
3. After the aforesaid statement (Ex.PD) was recorded by SI Harvinder Singh
(PW-10), the same was sent to police station for registering formal FIR
(Ex.PW-10/A). SI Harvinder Singh along with other police officials
proceeded to the place of occurrence and conducted inquest proceedings.
The dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem examination through
Head Constable Ramesh Kumar. Rough site plan was prepared. The blood
found at the spot was lifted and taken into possession. A blood stained
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) -3-
hammer and dagger found at the spot were also taken into possession.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused Narinder Singh and Inderjit
Kumar were arrested on 20.3.2003 and were interrogated. Accused Narinder
Singh disclosed that he had kept concealed a purse containing currency notes
worth Rs.1100/- and Identity Card of deceased Giana Parshad and pursuant
to the said statement got the same recovered. It is also the case of
prosecution that accused had made extra judicial confession before one Avtar
Singh (PW-3).
4. Upon completion of investigation the police presented a challan against
Narinder Singh and Inderjit Singh in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate
1st Class, Ludhiana on 05.05.2003, who committed the case to the Court of
Sessions vide order dated 19.05.2003. Charges were framed against both the
accused for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC on
02.06.2003 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined as many as 12
PWs. The gist of their testimonies is referred to herein under:-
PW-1 Dr. Amit Modi, Medical Officer who had conducted post mortem
examination on the dead body of Giana Prashad described in detail the
injuries found on the dead body and proved the post mortem report as Ex.PA.
He opined that the cause of death was due to injury on the vital organ brain
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) -4-PW-2 Gurbhej Singh (complainant) on whose statement the FIR had been
lodged stated in tune with the version got recorded by him in the FIR which
has already been referred to in the earlier part of the judgment.
PW-3 Avtar Singh stated that he is working as a property dealer and is
President of Gurudwara Charan Sho. He stated that on 19.03.2003 at about 8
PM both the accused Narinder Singh and Inderjit Kumar came to his house
and confessed before him that they had a quarrel with one gorkha on the
night of 15.3.2003 who was working as a chowkidar with one Ludhiana
Shuttering Works at Dugri Road, Ludhiana, owned by Mr. Chhabra and that
they had killed him by hitting him with a hammer on his head and chest and
that they had also removed his wallet containing Rs.1100/-. PW-3 further
stated that he produced both the aforesaid persons before the police the next
day at about 12 Noon.
PW-4 HC Meet Ram tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-4/A in his evidence
wherein he deposed that on 10.4.2003 Moharir Malkhana HC Harmit Singh
handed over case property to him i.e. a parcel containing blood stained
hammer, a small dagger and blood stained soil and directed him to deposit
the same in the office of FSL, Chandigarh, which he accordingly deposited
the same day. He further stated that as long as the said parcels remained in
his custody the same were not tampered with.
PW-5 HC Ramesh Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-5/A in his evidence
wherein he deposed that on 16.3.2003 he was associated with the
investigating officer SI Harvinder Singh in Police Station Model Town and
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) -5-that on the said day SI Harvinder Singh had handed over the dead body of
Giana Parshad to him for getting the post mortem examination conducted
and that he accordingly got the needful done.
PW-6 Constable Ram Saran stated that he had prepared a scaled site plan
Ex.PW6/A under the instructions of Gurbhej Singh (complainant).
PW-7 ASI Manjit Singh stated that on 16.3.2003 he was associated with the
investigation of the case along with SI Harvinder Singh and that during the
course of investigation blood stained soil was collected from the place of
occurrence and was prepared into parcel and duly sealed. He further stated
with regard to recovery of blood stained iron hammer and a dagger from the
spot.
PW-8 Parminder Singh stated that he was running a photography studio and
had taken the pictures of the dead body and proved photographs Ex.P-2 to P-
6 and negatives Ex.P-7 to P-11.
PW-9 Gurpreet Singh stated that on 22.3.2003 he was associated with the
police party and that it was in his presence that Narinder Singh accused took
the police party to his house and got a wallet recovered from his house which
was lying concealed behind a photograph of Vishvkarma and that the said
wallet contained a photograph of Giana Parshad and also currency notes
worth Rs.1100/-. He further stated that he had given fresh 11 currency notes
of denomination of Rs.100/- each to Giana Parshad as Giana Parshad needed
the same in connection with marriage of his daughter and that Giana Parshad
had also issued a receipt for the same.
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) -6-
PW-10 SI Harvinder Singh who is the Investigating Officer in the present
case stated in detail with regard to the entire investigation conducted in the
matter right from lodging of the FIR upto presentation of challan. He stated
with regard to interrogation of the accused and disclosure statements made
by them and the recovery effected thereof and also proved various
documents and memos prepared during the course of investigation.
PW-11 HC Harmit Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-11/A in evidence
wherein he deposed that he was posted as Malkhana Moharrir in Police
Station Model Town, Ludhiana and that on 16.3.2003 SI Harvinder Singh
deposited case property in Malkhana including parcels containing blood
stained soil, iron hammer and dagger and that on 10.4.2003 he had handed
over the said parcels to HC Meet Ram directing him to deposit the same in
the office of FSL and that the same were accordingly deposited on the same
day itself.
PW-12 Constable Santokh Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-12/A in
evidence wherein he deposed that he was posted in Police Station Model
Town on 16.3.2003. On said day ASI Sarwan Singh had handed special
reports to him which he delivered to Illaqa Magistrate and as well as to other
senior officers.
6. The prosecution tendered into evidence a report of FSL (Ex.PX) and closed
its evidence. Upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, the entire evidence
was put to the accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable them to
explain the same, but the accused denied the entire prosecution case in toto
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) -7-
and pleaded false implication. The accused however, did not chose to lead
any evidence in their defence.
7. Learned trial Court upon considering the evidence on record found the
appellants guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections
302/34 and 201 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment vide
judgment dated 04.02.2005 which is assailed in this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment
submitted that it is a case of blind murder wherein there is no eye-witness
and the prosecution has fabricated false evidence so as to falsely implicate
the appellants. It has been submitted that the prosecution banks upon
circumstantial evidence in the shape of an extra judicial confession which
apart from being a weak piece of evidence is not trustworthy on account of
inconsistencies regarding the time period. It has been submitted that the
factum of recovery of wallet at the instance of accused Narinder Singh is
nothing but an attempt on the part of prosecution to pad evidence against the
accused. It has further been pointed out that while the Investigating Officer
(PW-10) SI Harvinder Singh during cross-examination stated that PW-9
Gurpreet Singh had disclosed that the accused had murdered Giana Parshad,
but Gurpreet Singh had not stated any such thing while in the witness box
and in fact it is the complainant Gurbhej Singh who had informed the police
about the murder and got his statement recorded. Learned counsel further
submitted that there is even absence of any strong motive for the accused to
have murdered the deceased and under these circumstances the alleged
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) -8-
circumstantial evidence falls way short to establish the case of the
prosecution.
9. Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to
the evidence led by the prosecution including the confession made by the
accused before Avtar Singh (PW-3) and also the factum of recovery of blood
stained hammer and dagger from the spot which was found to be stained with
blood and also the recovery of wallet of deceased at the instance of accused
Narinder Singh the case of the prosecution stands fully established and that
there is no room for any interference in the impugned judgment.
10. This Court has considered rival submissions and have also perused the record
of the case.
11. Since, it is a case of homicidal death, it is apposite to refer to the medical
evidence in this regard. The prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Amit Modi
who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Giana
Prashad. PW-1 has proved the post mortem report as Ex.PA and described
the following injuries found on the dead body of Giana Parshad:
“1) 8 x 6 cm lacerated wound on middle of fore head Brain matter was coming
out of the wound. Portion of frontal bone was missing. Blood was present
in brain tissues membranes were ruptured in the bialateral frontal region.
2. 1 x 1 cm lacerated wound on anterior aspect of right leg.
3. Red coloured abrasion 1 x 1 cm. Was present on the anterior aspect of right
knee.
12. PW-1 Dr. Amit Modi further stated that the cause of death as per his
opinion was the injury on the brain which was sufficient to cause
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) -9-
death in the ordinary course of nature. The aforesaid PW was cross-
examined at length, but nothing substantial could be elicited during
the course of his cross-examination. A perusal of injury No.1 shows
that the same is in the nature of lacerated wound on the middle of fore
head and brain matter was seen coming out of wound which indicates
that the injury had been inflicted with some heavy object and with a
great force. Such like injury could have been possible with a
hammer, as is the case of the prosecution. In the absence of anything
to doubt, the testimony or the opinion of the doctor, this court has no
hesitation in holding that it is a case of homicidal death wherein the
deceased died on account of having been hit by a heavy object with
great force on his head leading to injury on his brain.
13. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the
prosecution banks upon circumstantial evidence to establish its case.
The said circumstantial evidence is broadly in the shape of an extra
judicial confession allegedly made by accused before one Avtar Singh
and also the recovery of wallet of the deceased at the instance of
Narinder Singh and also the factum of recovery of blood stained
weapons at the spot.
14. As far as the extra judicial confession before Avtar Singh (PW-3) is
concerned, it is well accepted that an extra judicial confession is a
weak type of evidence and can be used for corroborative purposes
only and conviction cannot be based solely on an extra judicial
confession. In the present case, while the occurrence had taken place
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) – 10 –
on the night intervening 15/16.03.2003, the FIR was lodged on
16.3.2003. It is the case of prosecution that the accused had
confessed their guilt before one Avtar Singh (PW-3) on 19.3.2003,
who produced them before the police in the afternoon on 20.3.2003.
It has been so stated by PW-3 Avtar Singh while in the witness box.
However, interestingly PW-2 Gurbhej Singh (complainant) during the
course of cross-examination stated that when he had gone to the
Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana on 17.3.2003 he had seen both
the accused in the police station. The said statement runs in absolute
contradiction of the statement of PW-3 Avtar Singh before whom the
accused had allegedly confessed their guilt. Still further, PW-3 Avtar
Singh deposed that the accused while confessing their guilt stated that
initially when a quarrel had taken place between accused and
deceased, the proprietor of godown (referred to as Chhabra) had
seperated them. The name of complainant as recorded in FIR/ruqa is
Gurbhej Singh Chhabra. However, PW-2 Gurbhej Singh complainant
has not stated anything regarding quarrel between accused and
deceased. Under these circumstances, it is certainly unsafe to rely
upon any such extra judicial confession even for the purpose of
corroboration.
15. Shorn of the extra judicial confession, the prosecution is left only
with the factum of recovery of a hammer and a dagger from the spot
which were found to be blood stained and also the factum of alleged
recovery of wallet of deceased, at the instance of accused Narinder
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) – 11 –
Singh. The existence of the aforesaid two pieces of evidence even if
accepted to be there would still fall grossly short to establish the case
of the prosecution.
16. We further find that there is absence of any motive, strong enough for
the accused to have murdered the deceased. In a recent judgement,
2025(1)RCR(Criminal) 140 Nusrat Parween vs. State of Jharkhand,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held although proof of motive is not sine
qua non in a case of murder but in a case based purely on
circumstantial evidence, motive if properly established, assumes great
significance and would definitely provide an important corroborative
link in the chain of incriminating circumstances and strengthen the
case of prosecution.
17. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution is expected to lead sterling evidence to establish all the
links in the chain of circumstantial evidence which collectively would
lead to one and only one conclusion that it is the accused who had
murdered the deceased.
18. The aforesaid principles have consistently been followed and have
been affirmed in catena of authorities. Recently, a three Judges Bench
of Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the aforesaid position of law in
2025(1) RCR(Criminal) 12, Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of
Maharashtra, and while doing so also referred to the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 1984
INSC 121, wherein it has been held that the following conditions must
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) – 12 –
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. It may be noted here that this
Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or
should” and not “may be” established.
(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
19. The above referred five conditions are the golden principles on which
any case based on circumstantial evidence would rest. It is necessary
for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established and the chain of
evidence should be so complete that the facts so established should be
totally consistent with one and only one version i.e. as regards guilt of
accused.
20. In view of the discussion made above, we find that the evidence led
by the prosecution falls grossly short to establish the guilt of the
accused. The extra judicial confession is far from convincing and, in
any case, is a weak type of evidence. The other piece of evidence
which is in the shape of disclosure statement and the recovery of
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
CRA-D-260-DB-2005 (O&M) – 13 –
wallet, blood stained hammer and blood stained dagger would not be
sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. There are various
missing links leaving much to be answered on the part of the
prosecution as regards the alleged guilt of the accused.
21. Having regard to the frail evidence in the present case, it is certainly
unsafe to base conviction on the same. The findings of the trial Court
holding the appellants guilty for having committed offence under
Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC cannot sustain and deserve to be set
aside. The appeal merits acceptance and is hereby accepted while
setting aside the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2005. The
appellants are acquitted of all the charges framed against them.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL )
JUDGE
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
10.03.2025 JUDGE
Mohan
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
MOHAN SINGH
2025.03.10 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab and Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh
[ad_1]
Source link