SUCHA SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                       [2013] 6 S.C.R. 560


A                         SUCHA SINGH
                                 v.
                      STATE OF HARYANA
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1190 of 2007)
                          JUNE 20, 2013
B
        [A.K. PATNAIK AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 & 394 - Conviction under, of
  the appellant - Propriety - Held: On facts, proper - Evidence
C of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-8 and PW-11 sufficient to unfold
  the prosecution story and prove beyond reasonable doubt that
  appellant had killed the deceased and committed theft of his
  mule cart - Appellant made extra-judicial confession to PW-
  8 - Motive of the appellant was to take possession of the mule
D cart and sell the same and make money - Recoveries of
  articles pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the
  appellant clearly point to the guilt of the appellant.

       Evidence - Witness - Appreciation of- Held: All witnesses
E of the prosecution need not be called - But witnesses essential
  to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is
  based must be called by the prosecution.

       Evidence - Confession - Extra-judicial confession -
    Admissibility of.
F
       PW1 found the dead body of PW2's son lying in a pit
  in the road side. The dead body had multiple injuries. The
  trial cou'rt held that there was no eye-witness to the
  incident In which the deceased was killed, but the chain
G of circumstances established by the prosecution proved
  beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant killed the
  deceased and stole his mule cart. These circumstances
  were thait the appellant had· hired the mule cart of the
  deceasei:I and the deceased left for the house of the
H                               560
       SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                561


appellant as deposed by PW-2. Further, the appellant         A
made extra-judicial confession to PW-8 that he had killed
the deceased. He also made a statement before the police
pursuant to which the 'Jlfeapon of offence (Kassi Ex.P~22)
and other articles (Exts.P-23 and P-24) were recovered.
The Kassi (Ex.P-22), bed-sheet (Ex.P-23) and Khes (Ex.P-     B
24) were found to be stained with human blood of the
same group of blood, which was detected on the clothes
of the deceased (Shirt, Ex.P-2, Jersey, Ex.P-4 and
Underwear Ex.P-5) worn by him at the time of the
occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstantial     c
evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant under
S~ctions 302 and 394 IPC, holding that the case of the
pr,osecution was a full-proof case, and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The conviction
and sentence was upheld by the High Court, and               D.
therefore the instant appeal.
     In the instant appeal, contentions were raised on
behalf of the appellant: 1) that the prosecution die( not
examine all the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet; 2)
th't the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been      E
made by the appellant to PW-8 ought not to have been
believed; 3) that the disclosure statement made by the
appellant to the police was under pressure from the
police and there were no independent witnesses to the
recovery made pursuant to the statement; 4) that the FIR     F
was not proved through the policeman who received the
FIR; 5) and that the motive of the appellant to kill the
deceased was not established by the prosecution.
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                             G
    HELD: 1.1. All the witnesses of the prosecution need
not be called but witnesses who were essential to the
unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is
based must be called by the prosecution whether the
                                                             H
   562     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2013) 6 S.C.R.


A effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the
  prosecution and failure to examine such a witness might
  affect a fair trial. However, whether an examination of a
  particular witness was essential to the unfolding of the
  prosecuti!on story will depend upon the facts and
B circumstances of each case. [Para 6] [568-A-C]

      1.2. In the facts of the present case, the witnesses
  who are essential for unfolding the prosecution case
  against the appellant have been examined. The evidence
  of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-8 and PW-11 are sufficient to
C unfold the prosecution story against the appellant and
  prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant
  who had kiilled the deceased and committed theft of his
  mule cart. On the facts of this case, it is difficult to hold
  that non-examination of other witnesses cited by the
D prosecution in the charge-sheet adversely affects the
  prosecution case or in any way was unfair to the accused.
  [Para 7] (568-D; 569-G-H; 570-A]

       Tej Parkash v. State of Haryana (1996) 7 SCC 322 -
E relied on.

        Stephen Seneviratne v. The King AIR 1936 PC 289 -
   referred to.

      2. A confession is a direct piece of evidence but
F before such evidence can be accepted, it must be
  established by cogent evidence what were the exact
  words used by the accused and even if the confession
  was establi$hed, prudence and justice demand that such
  evidence should not be used as the sole ground of
G conviction and it may be used as a corroborative piece
  of evidence. In the instant case, PW-8 has stated that on
  05.02.1997, the appellant came to his residence and told
  him that with a bad intention he had murdered the
  deceased and he had brought the mule cart to village
H Kamalpur. This was a clear confession made by the
       SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                  563


appellant to PW-8. That apart, this extra-judicial             A
confession only corroborates the other circumstances
which establish the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. [Para 8] [570-B-D]

   Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 40: 1965        B
SCR 86 - relied on.

     3. Pursuant to the information furnished by the
appellant the Kassi, Khes and Bed-sheet were recovered
from the pit under the road pulia. The recovery has also
been witnessed by PW-3, who has clearly stated in his          C
evidence that the accused got recovered Kassi, one Khes
and a bed-sheet. These articles which were recovered
were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the
results of the Forensic Science Laboratory are that the
Kassi, Bed-sheet and Khes were stained with large and          D
small blood stains. These recoveries of the aforesaid
articles pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the
appellant clearly point to the guilt of the appellant. [Para
10] [571-C-D]
                                                               E
    State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960
SC 1125 - relied on.

     4. PW-1, the informant, has been examined and he
has stated that he lodged the FIR on 01.02.1997 and PW-
11 has stated that on the basis of the information             F
furnished by PW-1 he registered the FIR which was
written by HC Ranbir Singh. Hence, the FIR (Ex.PE/2) has
been duly proved. Further, from the extra judicial
confession made by the appellant to PW-8, it is clear that
the motive of the appellant was to take possession of the      G
mule cart and sell the same and make money. [Paras 11,
12] [571-F, G; 572-A]

     5. In the result, no infirmity is found in the judgment
of the trial court and the High Court. [Para 13] [572-B]
                                                               H
    564      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A                         Case Law Reference:
          (1996) 1 sec 322         relied on             Para 6
          AIR 1936 PC 289          referred to           Para 6
          1965 SCR 86              relied on             Para 8
B
          AIR 1960 SC 1125         relied on              Para 9

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1190 of 2007.
c        From the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2006 of the
    High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRLA No. 294
    of 2003.

          Dr. Sushil Balwada (A.C.) for the Appellant.
D
        Rajeev Gaur Naseem, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the
    Respondent.

          The Jµdgment of the Court was delivered by
E       A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the
    judgment dated 06.04.2006 of the Division Bench of the Punjab
    and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.294-DB of
    2003.

F      2. The facts very briefly are that Amrik Singh, son of Fakir
  Singh, resident of Azad Nagar, Patiala (Punjab), used to ply a
  mule cart. On 31.01.1997, the appellant contacted him and
  hired his mule cart for Rs.600/- for carrying his household
  luggage from village Kamalpur, Police Station Rajound, to
G village Chl!mbo Kheri, District Patiala. Accordingly, Amrik
  Singh left for the village Kamalpur on 31.01.1997 and was to
  return on the night of the same day, but did not return. His family
  members waited till the morning of 01.02.1997 but when Amrik
  Singh did not return, they became apprehensive and Fakir
H Singh went to the house of the appellant and met his wife who
        SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                       565.
                 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
assured him that his son will return back by evening. When            A
Amrik Singh did not return in the evening of 01.02.1997, Fakir
Singh, Kaka Singh and Hardev Singh visited the house of the
appellant and again they were assured by the wife of the
appellant that Amrik Singh will return soon. In the meanwhile,
on 01.02.1997 at about 11.30 am, one Rajinder Kumar noticed           B
the dead body of a young man lying in a pit in the road side
near village Kichhana and informed the police of Police Station,
Rajound, and FIR was registered in Police Station, Rajound,
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'),
and when inquest proceedings were carried out on the dead             C
body, a purse and a slip were recovered from the dead body
and from the slip the police was able to trace the family of
Amrik Singh and informed Fakir Singh who reached the Ciliil
Hospital, Kaithal, and identified the dead body to be that of his
son Amrik Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased").
Investigation Y(as carried out and a charge-sheet was filed           0
under Sections 302 and 394, IPC, against the appellant.

       3. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was tried. At the
trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The
trial court found that there was no eye-witness to the incident       E
in which the deceased was killed, but the chain of
circumstances established by the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the appellant killed the deceased and
stole his mule cart. These circumstances were that the appellant
hirecj the mule cart of the deceased and the deceased left for        F
the house of the appellant as has been deposed by Fakir Singh
(PW-2). The appellant made an extra-judicial confession to
Sher Singh (PW-8) who accompanied the appellant along with
the mule cart that he had killed the deceased and the mule cart
was produced beforathepolice by Sher Singh (PW-8) as per              G
recovery memo (Ex.PF). The appellant made a statement
before the police pursuant to which the weapon of offence
(Kassi Ex.P-22) and other articles (Exts.P-23 and P-24) were
recovered. As per the reports of the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Haryana, Ex.PH and Ex.PH/1, the Kassi (Ex.P-22),
                                                                      H
    566      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A bed-sheet (Ex.P-23) and Khes (Ex.P-24) were found to be
  stained with human blood of the same group of blood, which
  was det¢cted on the clothes of the deceased (Shirt, Ex. P-2,
  Jersey, Ex.P-4 and Underwear Ex.P-5) worn by him at the time
  of the occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstantial
8 evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant under Sections
  302 and 394 IPC, saying that the case of the prosecution was
  a full-proof case, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
  imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence under
  Section 302 IPC and for a period of 7 years rigorous
C imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under
  Section 394 IPC. The trial court further ordered that the
  sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved, the appellant
  filed the Criminal Appeal No. 294-DB of 2003 in the High Court,
  but by the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the
  appeal and maintained the conviction and sentences against
D the appellant.

      4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there
  was no eye witness to the occurrence and the conviction of the
  appellant was solely based on circumstantial evidence. He
E submitted that the trial court was not right in convicting the
  appellant for the following reasons:

          (i) Though the prosecution cited many witnesses in the
          charge-sheet, it examined only 11 witnesses.
F         (ii) The extra-judicial confession alleged to have been
          made by the appellant to Sher Singh (PW-8) ought not to
          have been believed.

          (iii) The statement of the appellant to the police on the
G         basis of which disclosure was made, was made under
          pressure from the police and there were no independent
          witnesses to the recoveries made pursuant to the
          statement.

H
        SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                      567
                 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    (iv) The FIR has not been proved through the policeman          A
    who has received the FIR, namely, Ranbir Singh.

    (v) The motive of the appellant to kill the deceased has not
    been established by the prosecution.
                                                                    B
     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this is,
therefore, a fit case in which the appellant should be acquitted
of the charges.

    5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted in his reply that:                                        c
    (i) It was not necessary for the prosecution to examine all
    the witnesses cited in the charge-sheet if the 11 witnesses
    who have been examined were sufficient to prove the case
    of the prosecution against the appellant beyond                 D
    reasonable doubt.

    (ii) The circumstantial evidence in this case including the
    medical evidence of PW-6 and the Forensic Science
    Laboratory Report were sufficient to establish that it is the   E
    appellant and the appellant alone who had committed the
    offences.

    (iii) The FIR had been proved by the prosecution by
    examining the informant, Rajinder Kumar (PW-1) and,
    therefore, it was not necessary to examine the policeman        F
    Ranbir Singh.

    (iv) The extra-judicial confession was corroborated by other
    circumstantial evidence and therefore was rightly believed
    by the trial court.                                             G

    (v) Where the circumstantial evidence established the guilt
    of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court cannot
    refuse to convict only on the ground that the motive of the
    accused is not proved.                                          H
    568     SIUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013) 6 S.C.R.


A      6. We may first deal with the contentions on behalf of the
  appellant that the prosecution has not examined all the
  witnesses cited in the charge-sheet. This Court has held in Tej
  Parkash v. State of Haryana [(1996) 7 SCC 322) relying on
  the Privy Council's decision in Stephen Seneviratne v. The
B King (AIR 1936 PC 289) that all the witnesses of the
  prosecutilon need not be called but witnesses who were
  essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the
  prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution whether
  the effect of their testimony is for or against the case for the
c prosecution and that failure to examine such a witness might
  affect a ~air trial. However, whether an examination of a
  particular witness was essential to the unfolding of the
  prosecution story will depend upon the facts and circumstances
  of each case.
D
        7. In the facts of the present case, we find that the
  witnesses who are essential for unfolding the prosecution case
  against the appellant have been examined. PW-1, Rajinder
  Kumar, is the informant who has stated that he noticed the dead .
E body of a young man aged 26-27 years lying in a pit in the road
  side and the dead body had multiple injuries and he proceeded
  towards Police Station, Rajound and on the way, he noticed a
  police jeep and he stopped the jeep and gave his statement
  to ASI Balwan Singh. PW-2, Fakir Singh, is the father of the
F deceased and his evidence is that on 31.01.1997, the appellant
  whom he knew earlier hired the mule cart for bringing household
  articles from village Kamalpur and the deceased accordingly
  went on the mule cart with the appellant and all this happened
  in his presence. He has further stated that the deceased did
  not come back on the evening of 31.01.1997 and on the
G morning of 01.02.1997, and on 01.02.1997 between 5.00 p.m.
  and 6.00 p.m., an ASI along with a constable came to him and
  showed hirn the documents which were recovered from the
  dead body and asked him whether the documents belonged
  to his son and he replied in the affirmative. He has further stated
H
          SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                       569
                   [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
  that he went to the Civil Hospital, Kaithal, and identified the       A
  dead body to be that of his son. PW-3, Kaka Singh,
  corroborated the statement of PW-2. PW-8 has deposed that
  on 05.02.1997, the appellant told him that he had murdered the
  deceased with a bad intention and he brought the mule cart to
  village Kamalpur and he had tried to sell the same. PW-8 has          B
  further deposed that the appellant requested him to produce
  him before the police with a view to avoid third degree method
  of interrogation by the police and on 06.02.1997, he produced
  him before the police. PW-11 (Balwan Singh), the Investigating
  Officer, has stated that on 01.02.1997, he recorded the               c
  statement of PW-1 (Ex.PE) and he registered the formal FIR
  (Ex.PE/2) which was recorded by HC Ranbir Singh. He has
, further deposed that he prepared the inquest report (Ex.PK) of
  the dead body of the deceased and during the inquest
  proceedings recovered the purse (Ex.P-25) along with the              o
  identity slip (Ex.P-26) and sent an application (Ex.PJ) for post-
  morlem of the dead body at the Civil Hospital, Kaithal. He has
  also deposed that on 06.02.1997, the appellant accompanied
  by PW-8 came from the side of village Kithana and was
  produced before him along with the mule cart by PW-8. He has          E
  further stated that on the number plate of the mule cart the name
  of the deceased was written with white paint in Punjabi
  language. He has further stated that on 07.02.1997, the
  appellant was interrogated and he made a disclosure statement
  (Ex.PG) and pursuant to the said disclosure statement (Ex.PG),        F
  the Khes (Ex.P-24), Bed-sheet (Ex.P-23) and Kassi (Ex.P-22)
  were recovered after digging the pit in which these articles were
  lying concealed. In our considered opinion, the evidence of PW-
  1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-8 and PW-11 are sufficient to unfold the
  prosecution story against the appellant and prove beyond              G
  reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who had killed the
  deceased and committed theft of his mule cart and on the facts
· of this case, it is difficult to hold that non-examination of other
  witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge-sheet
  adversely affects the prosecution case or in any way was unfair       H
    570       Sl+lPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 6 S.C.R.


A to the accused.

       8. There is also no merit in the contention of the learned
  counsel for the appellant that the extra-judicial confession
  alleged to have been made by the appellant to PW-8 ought not
B to have been believed. In Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR
  1966 SC 4G), this Court has held that a confession is a direct
  piece of e\Adence but before such evidence can be accepted,
  it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact
  words used by the accused and even if the confession was
C established, prudence and justice demand that such evidence
  should not be used as the sole ground of conviction and it may
  be used a$ a corroborative piece of evidence. As we have
  already noticed, PW-8 has stated that on 05.02.1997, the
  appellant came to his residence and told him that with a bad
  intention he had murdered the deceased and he had brought
0
  the mule cart to village Kamalpur. This was a clear confession
  made by the appellant to PW-8. That apart, this extra-judicial
  confession only corroborates the other circumstances which
  establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

E         9. We may next consider the submission of learned
    counsel for the appellant that the disclosure statement made
    by the appellant to the police was under pressure from the
    police and there were no independent witnesses to the recovery
    made pursuant to the statement. In State of Uttar Pradesh v.
F   Deoman Upadhyaya (AIR 1960 SC 1125), a five judge bench
    of this Court has held:

          "Section 27 is founded on the principle that even though
          the evidence relating to confessional or other statements
G         made by a person, whilst he is in the custody of a police
          officer, is tainted and therefore inadmissible, if the truth of
          the information given by him is assured by the discovery
          of a fact, it may be presumed to be untainted and is
          therefore declared provable in so far as it distinctly relates
                                                         ·,,.:',
H
         SUCHA SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA                        571
                 (A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
     to the fact thereby discovered."                                  A

      The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that
 the statement of the appellant to the police on the basis of which
·disclosure was made was under pressure from the police is
 thus misconceived if the truth of the statement was established       B
 through recoveries made pursuant to the statement.

      10. In the instant case, pursuant to the information furnished
by the appellant the Kassi, Khes and Bed-sheet were
 recovered from the pit under the road pulia. The recovery has
also been witnessed by PW-3, Kaka Singh, who has clearly               C·
stated in his evidence that the accused got recovered Kassi,
one Khes and a bed-sheet. These articles which were
recovered were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and
the results of the Forensic Science Laboratory are that the
Kassi, Bed-sheet and Khes were stained with large and small            D
blood stains. These recoveries of the aforesaid articles
pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant
clearly point to the guilt of the appellant and there is no merit in
the. contention of. learned counsel for the appellant that the
statement of the appellant and the recoveries made pursuant            E
to the statement of the appellant are of no evidentiary value.

     11. We also do not find any merit in the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR has not been
proved through HC Ranbir Singh, the policeman who received             F
the FIR. We find that PW-1, the informant, has been examined
and he has stated that he lodged the FIR on 01.02.1997 and
PW-11 has stated that on the basis of the information furnished
by PW-1 he regis.tered the FIR which was written by HC Ranbir
Singh. Hence, the FIR (Ex.PE/2) has been duly proved.                  G

     12. We also find that the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant that the motive of the appellant to kill the
deceased has not been established by the prosecution is
misconceived in facts. From the extra judicial confession made         H
    572              SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2013) 6 S.C.R.

A   by the appellant to PW-8, it is clear thai the motive of the
    appellant was to take possession of the mule cart and sell the
    same and make money..

          13. In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment
8 of the trial court and the High Court arid we acc0rdingly dismiss
    this appeal.          ·        ;                                ·
             ,   '
    8.8.8.                                        · Appeal Dismissed.




                                             ''




                                                  .•·