RANJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                   [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1107

                       RANJIT SINGH ·                             A
                              v.
                    STATE OF PUNJAB
            ·{Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 2004)
                     MARCH 29, 2011
                                                                  B
   [HARjlT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                  PRASAD, JJ.]

      Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Murder- Allegation that the
•ictim-deceased was strangulated by her husband, sister-in-       C
aw and grandmother-in-law which caused her death - Trial
 ~ourt acquitted all the accused on the ground that there was
•O motive for the murder and the sanctity of the extra judicial
·onfession was doubtful - High Court held the appellant-
·Usband guilty, however upheld the order of acquittal as far      D
  1e other accused were concerned - On appeal, held: There
  •as no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime -
 :xtra-judicial confession was made by the appellant to PWs
   and 9 - Trial court gave good reason for discarding the
•vidence of PWs 8 and 9 by observing that the appellant and       E
  1e other accused were in custody from the 2nd September,
  990 onwards when· the incident occurred and as such the
 irosecution story that he was arrested on 10th September
  fter he had made the extra judicial confessions was
 inbelievable - High Court observed that the extra judicial       F
  <Jnfessions were irrelevant in the circumstances, and yet
 elied on those confessions - There was no other evidence
 gainst the appellant - Some of the conclusions drawn by
 ligh Court were merely conjectural and were not borne out
 iv evidence - The view taken by trial court was possible and     G
 "1ould not have been interfered with by High Court -
  ,ppellant acquitted.

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
10. 389 of 2004.
                            1107                                  H
       1108    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.


-A .        From the Judgment & Order dated 4.12.2003 of the
       Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
       Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 93-DBA of 1994.

           O.P. Khullar and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant.
 B         Kuldip Singh, K.K. Pandey and H.S. Sandhu for the
       Respondent.

           The following Order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER
 c
            This appeal has been filed by Ranjit Singh challenging his
       conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC for
       having committed the murder of his wife on 1st September 1990
       in the area of village Sandhwan, District Faridkot.
 D
         As per the prosecution story Gurtej Singh-PW.10 of village
  Sandhwan found the dead body of Gurmail Kaur lying in the
  house of the appellant on the 1st September 1990. None of the
  family members of the appellant were present in the house at
E that time but an electric wire was lying near the dead body.
  Gurtej Singh-PW. thereafter informed PW.3-Harjinder Singh-the
  brother of the deceased, who rushed to village Sandhwan
  accompanied by his son Mohan Singh and Sarpanch
  Harbhajan Singh. They found the dead body lying in the house.
F The matter was reported by Harjinder Singh to the Police
  Station at 5.30 a.m. on the 2nd September, 1990. ASl-Sant
  Parkash (PW.14) thereafter reached the house of the appellant
  in vlllage Sandhwan. He recorded the inquest proceedings and
  sent the dead body for its post-mortem examination. He also
G picked up an electric wire 15 feet in length from the spot. The
  post-mortem examination conducted on the 2nd September at
  1.45 by Dr. K.K.Agarwal revealed ten injuries on the dead body.
  The Doctor opined that the death had been caused by asphyxia
  due to strangulation. It was also opined that after the deceased
  had been done to death efforts had been made to electrocute
H
          RANJITSINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                     1109

 her as well. During the course of the investigation it was found     A
 that Ranjit Singh - appellant and his sisters Manjit Kaur and
 Baljit Kaur and grandmother-Gurcharan Kaur were also
 involved in the murder. Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur were
 accordingly arrested on the September 12, 1990 whereas, as
 per the prosecution story, the appellant was produced before         B
 the Investigating officer on the same day by PW.8 Geja Singh
 before whom he had made an extra judicial confession. A
 charge-sheet was also filed against Ranjit Singh, Baljit Kaur
 and Manjit Kaur whereas Gurcharan Kaur was shown in Column
 No.2 but was subsequently summoned and sent up for trial on          c
 the basis of an application made under Section 319 of the
 Cr.P.C. On appearance of Gurcharan Kaur charges under
 Section 302/34 of the IPC were framed against all the accused.
       The prosecution in support of its case relied inter alia on
  the evidence of Dr. K.K. Aggarwal (PW.1) who had conducted          D
  the post-mortem, PW.3-Harjinder Singh-the first informant,
  PW.4-Mohan Singh, and PW.8-Geja Singh and PW.9-Arjan
  Singh to whom Ranjit Singh had made extra judicial confessions
  and PW.13-Tejvir Singh to whom Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur
  had made extra-judicial confessions. After the close of the         E
  prosecution case the statements of the accused were recorded
  under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They denied all the allegations
  against them and stated that they had never sought any money
  from Gurnail Kaur's father for the purpose of sending Baijit Kaur
  and Manjit Kaur Canada to join their mother who was living          F
· there. They also pleaded alibis in defence and also produced
  evidence to that effect.
      The Trial Court recorded some positive findings in favour
 of the accused on a perusal of the evidence. It observed that G
 there appeared to be no motive for the murder and none had
 been suggested by the prosecution and the story that the
 accused were attempting to extort money from the deceased
 and her father so that they could buy tickets for going abroad
 was not based on any evidence. The court also observed that· H
    1110    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011) 3 S.C.R.

A but for the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the
   accused to PW's. 8,9 and 13, there was no other evidence
   against the accused. The Court then examined this evidence
   and held that as per the statement of PW.8 Geja Singh the
   accused had been arrested on the 2nd September, 1990
a whereas the 1.0. PW.14 had categorically stated that they had
   been arrested on the 10th September, 1990 and in this view
   of the matter the sanctity of the extra judicial confession was
   suspect. It has also observed that PW.9 was closely related to
   the family of the deceased and was therefore improbable that
c the accused would make an extra judicial confession to him.
   The Trial Court accordingly acquitted the accused. The matter
   was thereafter taken in appeal to the High Court by the State
   of Punjab. The High Court, has on a reconsideration of the
   evidence, allowed the State appeal qua Ranjit Singh-the
.D appellant and dismissed the appeal qua the other two i.e. Baljit
   Kaur and Manjit Kaur. The High Court has opined that the
   appellant was the husband of the deceased and as the death
   of Gurmail Kaur was homicidal and as the appellant had made
   absolutely no effort to raise a hue and cry despite the fact that
E his wife had been murdered, clearly spelt out that he was guilty
   of the crime. It was also observed that the extra judicial
   confession though of little significance but an inference could
   be drawn that the appellant wanted his wife out of the way so
   that he could move to Canada to be with his mother who was
   settled there. The Court however observed that this was not a
F case of a murder for dowry but was nevertheless a diabolical
   crime. The State appeal was accordingly allowed and the
   appellant sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of
   the IPC. This statutory appeal has been filed by Ranjit Singh.
G      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties very
  carefully and had gone through the record. The Trial Court had
  gone into the evidence and observed that there was no
  evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. It is true that
  the incident happened in the matrimonial home and some
H presumption regarding the special knowledge etc. could be
          RANJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB.                  1111


  raised in such a situation. But the basic onus on the prosecution A
  is to prove its case and. the onus does not change merely
  because the victim is the wife and the accused the husband
  and the incident happened in the matrimonial home. In this case ·
  it has been found .that the extra-judicial confession has been
  made by the appellant to two persons i.e. Geja Singh and Arjun B
  Singh. The Trial Court had given very good reasons for
  discarding this evidence by observing that the appellant along
  with his sisters were in custody from the 2nd September, 1990
  onwards and as such the prosecution story that he had been
  arrested on the 10th September, 1990 after he had made the c
  extra judicial confession was unbelievable. The High Court has
  observed however that the extra judicial confession was really
  irrelevant in the circumstances, but at the same time, curiously,
  relied on those very confessions. We also find that some of the
  conclusions drawn by the High Court are merely conjectural and
                                                                     0
  are not borne out by evidence. An extra judicial confessiofl'ir>
  an extremely weak kind of _evidence and conviction on its basis .
  alone is rarely recorded, there is absolutely no other evidence
  in the case. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High .
  Court was a little stretched out and not possible on the facts of E
· the case. The view taken by the Trial Court was clearly possible
  and should not have been interfered with by the High Court.
      We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment
 of the High Court and direct the appellant's acquittal. His bail
-bonds are discharged.                                              F
 D.G.                                           Appeal allowed .



                           .·