Jagtar Singh @ Jagraj Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.

Appellants Jagtar Singh, his wife Gurmit Kaur as also Gurbhej Singh, brother''s son of Gurmit Kaur, have been held guilty of intentionally causing death of Ravel Singh real brother of Jagtar Singh appellant. They have, thus, been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. They have also been held guilty under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months. Both the sentences have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. It is against this order of conviction and sentence dated April 3, 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, that the present appeal has been filed by the three appellants, named above.

Before we might narrate the prosecution version, we would like to mention that the case against the appellants is based upon the circumstantial evidence and, therefore, the question that needs determination is as to whether the circumstances leading to death of Ravel Singh are such that they lead to one and the only one inference, i.e. the appellants are guilty of the crime alleged against them. Like in every case based on circumstantial evidence, in this case as well, it has to be found as to whether such circumstances are complete, as mentioned above, or there are missing links therein.

Prosecution story was unfolded by Devinder Pal Kaur, PW1, wife of deceased Ravel Singh when she made a statement at 8.30 p.m. before SI Hans Raj on April 14, 1993. She stated that her husband had two brothers, Sewa Singh was the eldest and lived at Baroda City in Gujarat State and was employed there in Oil and Natural Gas Company. Her husband was younger to him and was aged about 51 years. Jagtar Singh was younger to her husband. Both Jagtar Singh and her husband were working in Oil and Natural Gas Company in High Seas at Bombay. After performing duty for fourteen days, they were given rest for fourteen days. During the rest period, they used to come to Amritsar. The Company would bear their travelling expenses to Amritsar. Jagtar Singh was residing in House No. 13B, Krishna Square No. 1 with his family. Herself and her husband had one house in Bombay. But in April, 1992 they came to Amritsar at the asking of Jagtar Singh and started residing in their House No. 39, Anand Nagar, Amritsar. This house was under construction. She had no son and had only one daughter, namely, Manpreet Gill, aged about nine years. Her husband''s younger brother and his wife Gurmit Kaur wanted to usurp their property as they had no son. In February, 1993, as a routine, her husband had to reach Amritsar on February 28, 1993 at 6 a.m. to avail rest for fourteen days. On February 23, 1993 she went to the house of Jagtar Singh appellant who was present in his house. She came back after knowing well being of her husband. On February 25, 1993 she again went to the house of Jagtar Singh in the afternoon where he (Jagtar Singh), his wife Gurmit Kaur, Jaswant Singh, brother of Gurmit Kaur, her nephew Gurbtej Singh @ Bheja, residents of Dhariwal, Police Station Rajasansi, Sucha Singh brotherinlaw of Gurmit Kaur and Kewal Singh son of Sucha Singh residents of Sehansara were sitting there. The back of Jagtar Singh was towards the door and Gurbhej Singh was sitting in front of him whose face was towards the door. As soon as she reached in the door of Baithak, Jagtar Singh uttered from his mouth that this time work should be done on his arrival but on seeing her Gurbhej Singh put the finger on his lips. Thereupon, Jagtar Singh stopped talking but she became suspicious at their such act. Then on seeing her they started talking on some other subject and she came back to her house. On February 28, 1993 her husband did not come from Bombay and she rang up in his company after waiting for him for one/two days and from there she got the response that Ravel Singh, after performing his duty, had left for Amritsar on February 26, 1993 for availing rest for fourteen days. Then, she again sent telegram to his company at Bombay from where she got telephonic reply that Ravel Singh had left on February 26, 1993 for availing fourteen days'' rest. She informed her husband''s elder brother Sewa Singh through telegram/telephone, who after making enquiries from Bombay, came to her on March 13/14 at Amritsar and told that Ravel Singh had left Bombay on February 26, 1993. Sewa Singh lodged a report with the police after appearing before the police officers in connection with missing of Ravel Singh. She also informed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, Director General of Police and Chief Minister, Punjab in this connection through registered post. During this period, she came to know that on February 27, 1993, Jagtar Singh had sent his children to his sister Kashmir Kaur after getting them leave from the school. Besides this, she also came to know that on February 28, 1993 Jagtar Singh and Gurbhej Singh had brought a tractor from Chhina Sahahbajpur which was near village Kukranwala, from the inlaws'' house of his husband''s sister. Her in laws wanted that their own man should drive the tractor but they insisted and had brought the tractor themselves because Gurbhej Singh knew how to drive the tractor. They did not allow anyone else to accompany them. The act of Jagtar Singh of sending his children out of his house on February 27, 1993 and bringing the tractor on February 28, 1993, created a doubt in her mind. Above all, what created doubt in her mind was that Subedar Wazir Singh of her parental village came to meet her and told her that on February 28, 1993, at about 6.30 a.m. he was going to Railway Station Amritsar for going to Jalandhar where he had met Jagtar Singh and Gurbhej Singh and Ravel Singh who were coming out of the Railway Station. At that time, Ravel Singh was carrying one Attache case and one bag with him. He enquired their well being and came to know that Ravel Singh had come from Bombay and Jagtar Singh and Gurbhej Singh had gone to railway station to receive him. He went at the platform after talking with them for about 24 monutes. They, i.e. Ravel Singh, Jagtar Singh and Gurbhej Singh left for their house. It made the complainant more upset. She further stated that apart from it, brotherinlaw of Gurmit Kaur and Kewal Singh, Jaswant Singh, brother of Gurmit Kaur and her nephew Gurbhej Singh had a grudge against her husband as he used to restrain Jagtar Singh from mixing with them and used to say that they were not good persons as they had links with the terrorists and that Jagtar Singh should remain away from them as they could involve him in some case. From the above circumstances, she became sure that the persons named above had murdered her husband with their common intention and disposed of his dead body by carrying it on the tractor.

In its endeavour to prove that the appellants alone had caused the death of Ravel Singh, the prosecution examined Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, Lecturer, Forensic Medicine Science, Medical College, Amritsar as PW8. He stated that on April 17 1993 at 12.40 p.m. he conducted post mortem on the deadbody of Ravel Singh. Deadbody was brought at about 6.40 p.m. on April 16, 1993 and it was identified by Kundan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. Deadbody was brought from Lahori Mal Chhiddan drain, Patiala. It was alleged to be case of death due to decapitation and separation of head from the body. Length of the body was 5''8". It was naked, petrified, foul smelling deadbody of a middle aged male having yellow metallic ring, bearing `RSG'' in right ring finger. Sclap hair from the head and beard region could be easily pulled out. Adepocere was present on face front and on back of the chest and abdomen, front and back of both thighs and left lower leg, muscle was missing from right leg, left fore arm, and right upper arm, bones were found joint by ligaments only. Maggots were found present in the orifices of the body. The doctor found following injuries on the dead body of Ravel Singh :

"1. Incised stabbed wound 3.5 x 1 cm on the front of right side of the chest, 7 cm above nipple of 12 o''clock position.

Incised stabbed wound 4.5 x 1.5 cm on the front of right side of chest, 6 cm below nipple at 8 o''clock position.

Incised stabbed wound 4.5 x 1 cm on the front of right hypochondria region of abdomen, 8 cm above umbilicus at 11 o''clock position.

Incised stabbed wound 3 x 1.5 cm on the front of left side of chest 6 cm above nipple at 2 o''clock position.

Decapitation of head was found at the level of upper end of thyroid cartilage obliquely placed.

The doctor further observed that membrane and brain were found liquefied and liquefied brain matter was present in the cranial cavity, large intestine, liver and kidneys. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was due to decapitation of head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem within about four to six weeks. In this crossexamination, the doctor stated that he learnt the name of the deceased from the police papers and the body was not identifiable and it was petrified. He had written in the post mortem report the name of deceased as it was disclosed by Kundan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh that it was dead body of Ravel Singh. PW1 Devinder Kaur, widow of Ravel Singh, deposed in tune with the FIR lodged by her, detailed reference whereof has already been given above. In her examinationinchief she also stated that she had identified the ring, Ex. P8 as the one which her husband used to wear. She also identified a small attache case, Ex. P11, pants, Ex. P12 and P13 and other belongings of her husband. In her crossexamination, she stated that she did not remember the date when the ring was got identified from her but it was after so many days after the registration of the case. She also stated that she was shown only this ring at the time of identification and there was no other ring. She also stated that she did not know as to on which date Jagtar Singh was arrested. Same was her reply with regard to other accused. Subedar Wazir Singh, who appeared as PW2 stated that on February 28, 1993, he went to the railway station, Amritsar for going to Jalandhar. Outside the railway station, Ravel Singh met him. He was accompanied by two persons. He introduced him those persons. One of them was Jagtar Singh and the other was Gurbhej Singh. Ravel Singh narrated him that he had come from Bombay and they had come to see him. Ravel Singh was having a bag of black colour and an attache case. He identified the bag and attache case as Ex.P9 and P11 respectively.

On April 14, 1993 he met Devinder Kaur and narrated her that Ravel Singh was accompanied by his brother and Gurbhej Singh and he had seen them outside the railway station on February 28, 1993. In his cross examination, he stated that he had gone to meet Kundan Singh at about 2 p.m. on April 14, 1993 but Kundan Singh was not there. He remained there upto 4 p.m. and met the police on the next day. He was summoned from the village on the next day by Virsa Singh and then he went to the police station at noon time. He did not see the accused in the police post at that time. The police had shown him the bag, Ex.P9 and attache case, Ex.P11 on April 15, 1993 when he visited the police post. He remained in the police post upto evening. Constable Bakshish Singh, PW3 only tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.PE. Amarjit Singh, Station Master, who appeared as PW4, stated that he had brought the summoned record. On February 28, 1993 he was posted at Amritsar and on the day 2903 UP Frontier Mail came from Bombay Central to Amritsar and reached Amritsar at 6.20 a.m. at platform No. 2. Right time of this train was 6.15 a.m. Tejinder Singh, a photographer was examined as PW5. He stated that he was taken by the police from his shop to Lahori Mal village on the border and the dead body was taken from the police station Gharinda and placed on the drain and he was asked to take photographs. This witness was declared hostile and crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. Swaran Singh, PW6, stated that Ajit Singh, his cousin brother, was the Sarpanch of Village. Ravel Singh was the soninlaw of his maternal uncle Kundan Singh and that Jagtar Singh was brother of Ravel Singh deceased. After giving relationship inter se the accused and deceased, the witness stated that on April 15, 1993, Jagtar Singh appellant came to his village and made a statement before him that they brought Ravel Singh from the railway station. He further stated that he along with Gurbhej Singh and his wife Gurmit Kaur killed Ravel Singh but he did not remember the exact date when they killed him. Jagtar Singh further told him that police was after them and his brother being Sarpanch of the village had intimacy with the police and that he should produce them before the police. The witness went to the house of Ajit Singh, who was not present in his house nor did he come to his house during that night.

On the next day, he did not come as he had gone to the City. He produced Jagtar Singh at about noon time before the police in police post Majitha before ASI Hans Raj. Appellant Jagtar Singh was arrested and interrogated by ASI. Meanwhile, Mukhtiar Singh also came there. In his presence and that of Mukhtiar Singh, the accused made a statement that they had concealed the dead body of Ravel Singh in a drain in the area of Lahori Mal and that he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused led the police party to the place of recovery and got recovered the dead body of Ravel Singh. He, Kundan Singh and Mukhtiar Singh identified the dead body. The neck was chopped off which was in a gunny bag along with the body. There were injuries on the person of Ravel Singh. There was also a ring in his index finger. A memo of recovery of dead body, Ex. PG was prepared which was attested by him and Mukhtiar Singh. On April 21, 1993 Gurmit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh also came to him in the village and they told that he had produced Jagtar Singh accused before the police and he should also produce them before the police. They also made a statement before him that they had killed Ravel Singh. He produced the said accused as well before the police in police post Majitha Road, Amritsar. They were arrested and interrogated. On interrogation, Gurmit Kaur made a statement that she could get the articles of Ravel Singh recovered from her house. The said articles were a small kirpan (Gatra), attache case, one bag containing clothes of the deceased. Her statement was recorded. Gurbhej Singh was also interrogated. He disclosed that dead body was taken in a drum and he could get the same recovered from near the drain. His statement was also recorded. Then in pursuance of their disclosure statements, whereas Gurmit Kaur accused led to recovery of one small kirpan, attache case and bag which were lying on a Parchhati, accused Gurbhej Singh led to recovery of drum Ex. P31 and a sword, Ex. P32. This witness was crossexamined but insofar as the same is relevant, it shall be discussed, if the necessity might arise while appreciating the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. Kundan Singh who was examined as PW7 stated that Devinder Kaur was his daughter and was married with Ravel Singh. His daughter and soninlaw came to Amritsar and constructed a house in Krishna Square, Amritsar. Ravel Singh was working in an Oil Company at Bombay. About a year and ten months back, his daughter disclosed to him that Ravel Singh was to come on 28th February but he did not come. They then enquired from Bombay that he had left on 26th February. Ravel Singh did not reach Amritsar. Then they gave applications to the police and searched for him. He further stated that his daughter had not disclosed to him that she had any suspicion against any one. When appellant Jagtar Singh was arrested, he led the police party to drain Lahori Mal and he along with Mukhtiar Singh also accompanied police to drain Lahori Mal. Appellant Jagtar Singh got recovered dead body of Ravel Singh from the said drain. He identified the dead body. He also identified the dead body of Ravel Singh before the doctor at the time of postmortem examination. The witness further stated that he knew appellant Gurmit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh and when Gurmit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh were arrested the police had interrogated them. On interrogation Gurmit Kaur disclosed that she had kept a bag of Ravel Singh which is in her house and in that bag there were some clothes and she could get the same recovered. Her statement was recorded which was attested by him and one Swaran Singh. Gurmit Kaur then led the police party to her house and got recovered bag and small sword.

The sword and bag were taken into possession. Gurbhej Singh appellant was also interrogated in his presence. On interrogation, he disclosed that he had kept concealed a Kirpan and drum near the dead body in the area of village Chhinden near the drain under the bushes. His statement was also recorded. Gurbhej Singh then led the police party and got recovered drum and Kirpan. The Investigating Officer took into possession Kirpan and Drum. PW9 Sarup Singh only stated that Ravel Singh had come to him along with his fatherin law. He had told him that his ring was loose and he asked him that he should give ring to him and he will mould it and prepare a new ring. He then prepared ring Ex.P8 for Ravel Singh and gave the same to him. He engraved the words RSG on the ring. He was shown ring Ex.P8 which he identified. In his crossexamination he could not say whether it was used or not. He also stated that he never met the police nor made any statement before the police. He further stated that he never told the police that Ravel Singh came to him and told him that his ring was loose and he asked him that he should give his old ring to him and he would prepare a fresh one for him. He denied the suggestion that the ring was new one. This witnesses was reexamined by the Public Prosecutor. He reiterated that he never appeared before the police on 6.7.1993. He was, however, confronted with his statement recorded before the police. He denied having made such a statement, Mukhtiar Singh PW10 stated that about two years ago he had gone to civil hospital, Amritsar and when he was coming back Swaran Singh met him and produced Jagtar Singh appellant before SI Hans Raj in his presence Police Post Majitha Road, Amritsar. He was interrogated by the Police in his presence. In his presence the appellant Jagtar Singh disclosed that he had kept concealed dead body of Ravel Singh in the drain in the area of villages Chhinden and Lahori Mal and he could get the same recovered. His statement was recorded and he led the police party along with him and Swaran Singh and got recovered the dead body of Ravel Singh from the place as disclosed by him. The deceased was wearing a ring on finger of his right hand. In his crossexamination he stated that he had gone to the hospital as one of his relations was admitted in the hospital. However, he could not give the name of his relation who was admitted in the hospital. He could not give his name and the way he was related to him. He also could not say as to whether the relation was male or female. He had searched for his relation in the hospital but could not find him there. He further stated that when he met Swaran Singh police was not there. Sawarn Singh was also sent from Police Post along with him.

After one hour when he went to the police post Hans Raj told them that Jagtar Singh had confessed everything and he could repeat the same in his presence. Kundan Singh was not present in the police post. He further stated that they left the police post at about 3 p.m. for effecting the recovery and within half an hour they had reached the place of recovery. Kundan Singh was present when the deadbody was recovered as he had met the police party on the way when it was going for effecting recovery. PW11 Charan Singh only stated that he was owner of a tractor Zeter the number of which he did not remember and that he knew Jagtar Singh and Gurbhej Singh appellants. He further stated that they never came to him nor had taken his tractor. He was declared hostile and crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. SI Hans Raj who was examined as PW12 detailed the steps he had taken while investigating the case. Rishi Ram Draftsman PW13 only deposed with regard to his preparing various scaled site plans on the pointing of Swaran Singh and other witnesses.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Gurmit Kaur stated that the witnesses had falsely implicated her in this case. Statements of other appellants are also likewise. Appellants led no evidence in defence.

We have heard Mr. P.S. Mann, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. T.P.S. Mann, Advocate, who represent the appellants as also Mr. A.G. Masih, AAG, Punjab, who represents the State as also Mr. D.S. Walia and Mr. A.K. Saini, Advocates, who represent the complainant and have also carefully examined the records of the case. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, we are of the view that it is not a case where it could be said that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution led to one and the only one inference, i.e., that the appellants are guilty of the crime alleged against them.

PW8 Dr. Gurmanjit Rai stated that he had learnt the name of the deceased from police papers and the body was not identifiable and it was putrified. In his examinationinchief, he, however, stated that it was a middle aged male having yellow metallic ring bearing RSG in right ring finger. The fact that the dead body that was recovered on account of the disclosure statement made by the appellants was that of Ravel Singh alone could, thus, be authenticated only by identifying the ring that was found in the right ring finger of the deceased on which alphabets RSG were engraved. As mentioned above, the doctor otherwise stated that the body was not identifiable and was putrified. At this stage, it shall be worthwhile to examine the statement of PW9 Sarup Singh. As per the prosecution version he is said to have made this ring. He stated in his examinationinchief that about eight years ago, Ravel Singh had come to him along with his fatherinlaw, again said that somebody was accompanying him from his inlaws'' village Mohawa. Ravel Singh had told him that his ring was loose and it be set right. He asked Ravel Singh that he should give the ring to him and he would mould it and prepare a new one. The witness further stated that he prepared the ring, Ex.P8 for Ravel Singh and gave the same to him. He had engraved words RSG on the ring and identified the same having been prepared by him. Even though in his examinationin chief, he said as has been mentioned above, in his crossexamination, he stated that he could not tell the weight of old ring as also that of ring, Ex. P8. He further stated that there was no identification mark on the ring to show that it was prepared by him. He could not tell the names of the persons whose rings he had prepared eight months back. He even could not tell the names of persons whose rings were prepared about one or two months ago. He also could not say as to whether ring Ex. P8 was used by Ravel Singh or not. He further stated that he never met the police nor made any statement before it nor he told the police that Ravel Singh came to him and he might have told that his ring was loose and that he might have asked him that he should bring his old ring and that he would prepare a fresh for him. He, however, denied the suggestion that being a neighbour of Kundan Singh, he was deposing falsely. He was reexamined by the Public Prosecutor wherein he stated that he had never appeared before the police nor they recorded his statement on July 6, 1993. He was allowed to be crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor and in his said crossexamination he stated that it was not a fact that he appeared before the police on July 6, 1993 before ASI Suba Singh. He was, however, confronted with his statement, Mark A, which he denied having ever made including portions A to A1. The matter does not rest there as the gold ring was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW12/K. This memo was prepared on April 16, 1993. It has been mentioned therein that in the presence of the witnesses, before preparing inquest report of the dead body of Ravel Singh, the gold ring where `RSG'' was engraved, and which was worn in the adjoining finger of small finger of right hand, was taken into possession by the police vide memo which was signed by the witnesses. What is intriguing is that even though ring was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW12/K on April 16, 1993 the doctor who conducted post mortem on April 17, 1993, still observed that in the right ring finger of the dead body there was a yellow metallic ring bearing `RSG''. A clear contradiction, thus, comes to the surface. If ring was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PW12/K on April 16, 1993, it could not have been found by the doctor when post mortem was conducted by him on the dead body of Ravel Singh. The evidence with regard to ring, it appears, has been brought with a view to identify the dead body that was subject matter of post mortem by Dr. Gurmanjit Rai to be that of Ravel Singh. But from such an evidence, as has been discussed above all that the Court can observe is that the prosecution has miserably failed in conclusively proving that dead body that was subject matter of post mortem on April 17, 1993 by Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, PW8, was actually that of Ravel Singh.

Before we might proceed on different links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, it shall be worthwhile to mention that insofar as motive is concerned the same also cannot be said to have been proved at all. While narrating the events in the FIR, PW1 Devinder Kaur stated that she had no son and had only one daughter, namely, Manpreet Gill, aged 9 years. Her husband''s brother Jagtar Singh and his wife Gurmit Kaur wanted to usurp their property as they had no son. If the motive was to grab the property of Ravel Singh, then by killing him alone the said purpose could not possibly be achieved. On demise of Ravel Singh, concededly, the property would come in the hands of his widow and daughter.

Insofar as circumstances said to have been established against the appellants are concerned, the one is that of last seen. PW2 Subedar Wazir Singh had seen the deceased Ravel Singh with Jagtar Singh and Gurbhej Singh appellants on February 28, 1993 at railway platform. The dead body of Ravel Singh was recovered on April 16, 1993. In the opinion of the doctor, PW8, the probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem about four to six weeks. The time that elapsed between death and post mortem could, thus, also be four weeks, PW2 Subedar Wazir Singh had seen the deceased with Jagtar Singh and Gurbhej Singh on February 28, 1993 i.e., about six weeks before the dead body of Ravel Singh was recovered. If Ravel Singh could have died four weeks prior to the date when his dead body was recovered, the statement on PW2 cannot be termed as an evidence of last seen. That apart, it is strange to note that that even though PW2 had seen Ravel Singh with the appellants Jagtar Singh and Gurbhej Singh on February 28, 1993 he revealed this fact to Davinder Kaur only on April 14, 1993, i.e. only two days before when dead body of Ravel Singh was recovered. No reliance thus can be placed upon this piece of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.

The next piece of circumstantial evidence is extrajudicial confession said to have been made by appellants to Swaran Singh, PW6. This witness stated that Ajit Singh, his cousin brother, was the Sarpanch of Village and that Ravel Singh was the soninlaw of his maternal uncle Kundan Singh. This witness is related to the deceased Ravel Singh and while appreciating his evidence, this aspect has, thus, to be kept in mind. This witness, with a view to prove the extrajudicial confession made to him by the appellants, referred to above, stated that on April 15, 1993, Jagtar Singh appellant came to his village and made a statement before him that they had brought Ravel Singh from the railway station and he along with Gurbhej Singh and his wife Gurmit Kaur killed Ravel Singh but he did not remember the exact date when they killed him. Jagtar Singh further told him that police was after them and his brother being Sarpanch of the village, had intimacy with the police and that he should produce them before the police. On the next day he produced Jagtar Singh at about noon time before the police in police post Majitha before ASI Hans Raj. Appellant Jagtar Singh was arrested and interrogated by ASI. In his presence and that of Mukhtiar Singh, the accused made a statement that he had concealed the dead body of Ravel Singh in a drain in the area of Lahori Mal and that he could get the same recovered.

In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused led the police party to the place of recovery and got recovered the dead body of Ravel Singh. On April 21, 1993 Gurmit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh also came to him in the village and they told that he had produced Jagtar Singh accused before the police and he should also produce them before the police. They also made a statement before him that they had killed Ravel Singh. He produced the said accused as well before the police in police post Majitha Road, Amritsar. They were arrested and interrogated. On interrogation, Gurmit Kaur made a statement that she could get the articles of Ravel Singh recovered from her house. The said articles were a small kirpan (Gatra), attache case, one bag containing clothes of the deceased. Her statement was recorded. Gurbhej Singh was also interrogated. He disclosed that dead body was taken in a drum and he could get the same recovered from near the drain. His statement was also recorded. Then in pursuance of their disclosure statements, whereas Gurmit Kaur accused led to recovery of one small kirpan, attache case and bag which were lying on a Parchhati, accused Gurbhej Singh led to recovery of drum Ex. P31 and a sword, Ex. P32. In his crossexamination, he admitted that Kundan Singh was his maternal uncle and Devinder Kaur was daughter of Kundan Singh. He further stated that he had got recorded in his statement that Gurbhej Singh and Gurmit Kaur had come to him on April 21, 1993 and narrated that as he had produced Jagtar Singh before the police, they should also be so produced. Since he had not so stated before the police, he was confronted with his statement, Ex. DA wherein it was not so recorded. He again stated that he had got recorded in his statement that Gurmit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh also told him that they had killed Ravel Singh, and therefore, they should be produced before the police. Since he had not stated so also before the police, he was confronted with his statement, Ex. DA wherein it was not so recorded. He then stated that he had not got recorded in his statement that on April 15, 1993 Jagtar Singh came to him at his residence at Krishna Square, House No. 13B, Amritsar. Again said that he had got recorded the above facts and Jagtar Singh had disclosed to him that he had killed his brother as per planning on February 28, 1993 in his house along with Gurbhej Singh and his wife Gurmit Kaur and his dead body was taken on a tractor and thrown in the drain known as Lahori Mal, ahead of the bridge towards South, 300 feet away in the bushes but he had not recorded that on April 15, 1993 when he had produced Jagtar Singh.

He was again confronted with his statement Ex. DB wherein portion A to A contained that on April 15, 1993 Jagtar Singh was produced by this witness as he had some intimation with the police as his brother was Sarpanch. He again had to confess that Jit Singh was not his real brother. It may be recalled at this stage that it has been case of this witness that the accused had come to him as his brother was Sarpanch and for that reason he could render them some help. He then went on to state that Jit Singh Sarpanch had his house which was adjoining his house and that he was his cousin brother. This witness was also confronted with his earlier statement made before the police on many other aspects of the case but there is no need to deal with the same in any more detail. Suffice it to say that this witness has certainly made lot of improvements over his earlier statement made before the police. That apart, there does not appear to be any reason as to why the appellants confessed their guilt before him. Normally, one could confess before a person in authority or someone close to him so that the said person may be able to render some help. In this case, appellants confessed their guilt before a close relation of the deceased, who could not possibly render them any help. The only reason given by him as to why the appellants came to him has been proved to be false. Jit Singh Sarpanch of the village was not his brother as he had to admit under the stress of crossexamination. Assuming that Jit Singh Sarpanch of the village was brother or cousin brother of this witness, it is strange as to why the appellants did not go to Jit Singh Sarpanch straightaway. They could not have chosen a close relation of the deceased to confess their guilt. No reliance, thus, can be placed upon the statement of this witness. PW7 is none other than father of Devinder Kaur. He is a witness with regard to recovery of dead body, bag and small sword on the disclosure statement made by Gurmit Kaur as also recovery of Kirpan and drum pursuant to disclosure statement made by Gurbhej Singh appellant. In his crossexamination he stated that they had gone along with the police to the house of Gurmit Kaur. House of Gurmit Kaur was at a distance of one furlong from Shivala Mandir. It was 7 p.m. when they had gone to the house of Gurmit Kaur, who was not present in her house at that time. Her house was locked. Thereafter, they had gone to the house of Gurmit Kaur when she got recovered the articles from her house. He further stated that he was called by the police on the date of recovery of dead body. He was coming from his village when he received a message from the police.

He was called by the police 34 days after recording statement of Devinder Kaur. He further stated that when he went to the police station it was about 2 p.m. Jagtar Singh was in police station. Gurmit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh were also there. It is, thus, clear from his statement that before he had gone to the police station on a message received by him from the police, appellants were already in the police station. In his examinationinchief he stated that when Jagtar Singh was arrested, he led the police party to the drain Lahori Mal. He also stated that when Gurmit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh were arrested, police interrogated them and on interrogation, Gurmit Kaur disclosed that she had kept a bag of Ravel Singh which was in her house and in that bag there were some clothes and that she could get the same recovered. Appellants were arrested on April 16, 1993, as per the statement made by PW12 Hans Raj, Sub Inspector, whereas this witness stated that he was called by the police three four days after recording of the statement of Devinder Kaur. That means the appellants were interrogated somewhere around 19th or 20th of April, 1993 whereas SI Hans Raj stated that appellant Jagtar Singh was arrested on April 16, 1993 when he was produced by Swaran Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. On his interrogation, he had disclosed that his brother Ravel Singh was to come from Bombay and he took him to his house at Krishna Square. He further disclosed that he had kept concealed the dead body of his brother Ravel Singh in a drum near Lahori Mal bridge in the drain and could get the same recovered. His statement Ex. PF was recorded which was signed by the accused and attested by Swaran Singh and Mukhtiar Singh. It is rather strange to note that if the appellants Jagtar Singh and others were arrested on April 16, 1993 and made disclosure statement also, how could this person be a witness to disclosure statements and recovery of articles 34 days after the said date. No reliance at all can be placed on statement of this witness. PW10 Mukhtiar Singh is also a witness to the recovery of dead body on the basis of disclosure statement made by Jagtar Singh. He is also a witness to the recovery of other articles recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements made by Gurmit Kaur and Gurbhej Singh. No reliance can at all be placed on the statement of this witness as well, as he has nowhere stated that nobody else was living in the house from where an attache case, a bag and a small sword were recovered on the basis of disclosure statement made by Gurmit Kaur.

The statement of Tejinder Singh, photographer, who was examined as PW5, has completely nailed the prosecution case. In his examinationinchief he stated that he was taken by the police from his shop to Lahori Mal village on the border and that the dead body was taken from the Police Station Gharinda and placed on the drain and he was asked to take the photographs. Even though he was declared hostile, on the request of the Public Prosecutor, and cross examined by him, but nothing substantial could be elicited from him to show that he was not telling the truth.

From the discussion made above, it cannot be said that the prosecution has led such evidence, which, as mentioned above, might show that such circumstances lead to one and the only one inference, i.e., that the appellants had committed the crime alleged against them. In fact, there are many missing links and the chain of circumstances is not complete.

In view of what has been said above, we allow this appeal. Consequently, we set aside the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and acquit the appellants by giving them benefit of doubt. They be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.