Shingara Singh vs U.T.Chandigarh

N.C. Jain J.

This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby Shingara Singh accusedappellant was convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of his wife Smt. Palwinder Kaur and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ (Rupees One thousand only) or in default of payment thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence he has filed the present appeal before this Court.

As is apparent, the ball in the instant case has been set rolling by he appellant himself by lodging the First Information Report Exhibit PA/1 on 1541985 at 830 A.M. The First Information Report was scribed by P.W. 21. Om Parkash Inspector on the basis of the statement of the appellant recorded at his house that very morning, Broadly, it was stated therein that on the fateful day, as usual, he had gone out for a walk and on return be found his wife lying murdered on the bed, with a portion of her neck hanging therefrom. On a careful watch he found a long abrasion mark on her neck Somebody had committed the murder of his wife by means of some cord or electric wire. According to the appellant Shingara Singh he was fatly confident that the son of Shamsher Singh, his landlord, who was serving in the Army as a Colonel either himself strangulated his wife to death or got it done by his own man as the landlord wanted to get the house vacated from him.

During the investigation of the case, it transpired that the appellant had intimacy with one Miss Sucheta Kumari, a clerk, working in the office of the appellant and that he had strained relations with his wife. This was precisely the motive alleged against the appellant for committing the murder of his wife. This is how, after investigation, the appellant was challaned for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution in order to establish its case has relied upon several circumstances, namely, (a) motive, (b) disclosure statement of the appellant Exhibit PT, (c) recoveries effected in pursuance of the abovementioned statement viz. (i) keys bunch Exhibit P,11 and pillow cover Exhibit P, 2 and the wire Exhibit P. 1, (d) Ocular testimony of certain prosecution Witness, (e) letter Exhibit PH written by the appellant to Miss Sucheta Kumari, (f) unnatural conduct of the appellant after the commission of the crime and (g) the extrajudicial confession made before Jagjit Singh PW 18.

Shri H. L. Sibal, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in the case of circumstantial evidence before basing the conviction, it is necessary to establish by cogent, succinct and reliable evidence and that the circumstances relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except one of the guilt of the accused. In other words, the circumstances must be of an incriminating character. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain, no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the appellant and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence.

Mr. Sibal has further argued that there is no evidence of strained relationship between the appellant and his wife on the record of the case and in any case the father of the deceased Gurbachan Ram DW. 3 has appeared in the witnessbox who has in clear terms stated that the relations between his daughter and the soninlaw were very cordial. It is further argued that there was no evidence of illicit relations between the appellant and Miss Sucheta Kumari which could prove motive and even otherwise according to the learned counsel the motive in the instant case has not at all been proved because Miss Sucheta Kumari has not been produced and her brother Vijay Kumar PW 7 did not support the prosecution version and he was declared hostile. The recoveries, according to the learned counsel do not connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. It has further been argued that several prosecution witnesses have not supported, the prosecution version and that they were declared hostile. The learned counsel further goes on to argue that no reliance could be placed upon the statement of Shamsher Singh PW 6 who was inimical towards the appellant. He being his landlord had admittedly litigation with him regarding eviction of the house. As regards the two uncles of the deceased, it has been argued that they did not have cordial relations with the father of the deceased. So far as the disclosure statement was concerned, it was argued that no public man was called to attest the same. In view thereof the disclosure statement or the recoveries effected in pursuance thereof cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel has further urged that Dara PW 12 the milkman was produced to prove the quarrel between the appellant and his wife. He is a stock witness of the police as has been hold by the Judicial Magistrate 1st, class in his judgment dated 1831986 Exhibit D A. This judgment was allowed as a piece of additional evidence by this Court on 1261987. While attacking Exhibit P.H. letter written by the appellant it was argued that the same was not a confession and the same cannot be used as such against the appellant for proving that he has committed the murder.

On the other hand Mr. H. S. Brar, learned counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, has argued that the motive in the instant case was proved and that the letter Exhibit PH was a confession. He has further argued that the disclosure statement could not be attested by an independent witness as none was available and that the recoveries effected in pursuance Of the disclosure statement were sufficient to connect the appellant with the Offence. He has argued that the appellant was not in the habit of going for a morning walk.

The prosecution in the instant case has not been able to prove the motive. In the case of circumstantial evidence and more so in the case of commission of murder of the wife by the husband the proof of motive was an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence which the prosecution has not been able to prove particularly when the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon motive. For proving the motive, the prosecution has relied upon the statements of Shamsher Singh PW 6, Dara PW 12 the milkman, the two uncles of the deceased Rattan Ram PW 13 and Mohan Chand PW 14 and the letter Exhibit PH. Not much credence can be given to the statement of Shamsher Singh PW 6 because, admittedly, the relations between the appellant and the landlord were not cordial on account of litigation. The visits of Miss Sucheta to the house of the appellant including the one on the occasion of birthday of his son as has been deposed to by Shamsher Singh PW 6 does not throw any light upon the motive because no evidence of illicit relations between the appellant and Miss Sucheta has been brought on the record of the case. The so called quarrel between the appellant and his wife as has been deposed to by Shamsher Singh PW 6 and Dara milkman PW 12 cannot advance the case of the prosecution because the details of the quarrel are not forthcoming. Dara milkman PW 12 is a stock witness of the police as has been held in the judgment dated 1831986 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class and therefore, he cannot be relied upon. The two uncles of the deceased namely Rattan Ram PW 13 and Mohan Chand PW 14 did not have cordial relations with the father of the deceased and they have not been relied upon even by the learned Sessions Judge. The wording of the letter Exhibit P.H. does not prove any confession on the part of the appellant. Above all, there is nothing to disbelieve Gurbachan Rani DW 3. who has unequivocally stated that the relations between the appellant and his wife were cordial and that his daughter never complained of any maltreatment on the art of the husband and there was no such thing about divorce or remarriage with another lade. In crossexamination of DW 3 Gurbachan Rani, no suggestion was put to hier about the friendly relations of the appellant with Miss Sucheta Kumar what to talk of any illicit relations between them.

The evidence regarding disclosure statement and its consequent recovery of pillow cover and a piece of wire is not acceptable. The only independent witness Anurag Pw 15 who belonged to the locality has not supported the prosecution case. Further, if for the sake of argument it is accepted that a pillow cover and a piece of were recovered at the instance of Shingara Singh, it does not advance the prosecution case. Pillow cover like the one recovered is available in every household. This was a peculiar feature about it which may be treated as incriminatory. The same applies to the piece of wire. The alleged recovery of these articles is natural circumstances.

Letter Exhibit P.H. written by the Appellant to Miss Sucheta Kumari cannot be used as a confession against the appellant as has been held in Palwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 S.C. 354. The word `confession as used in the Evidence Act cannot be construed as meaning a statement by an accused suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. Admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a confession.

The extrajudicial confession made to Jagjit Singh PW, 18 is not worthy of reliance and even the learned Session Judge has not relied upon the same. Jagjit Singh PW, 18 did not support the prosecution case of extrajudicial confession and he was got declared hostile.

As regards the habits of appellant for not having a morning walk, the prosecution has only relied upon the statement of Shamsher Singh PW 6. His statement has already been discarded, as mentioned above. Moreover, Dara the milkman PW 12 does not state as to whether the appellant used to go for a morning walk or not. Even otherwise, the appellant in the First Information Report has stated that he went as usual for a morning walk. The appellant has only to give plausible explanation and not to prove to the hilt as to who has committed the crime. We do not find any unnatural conduct on the part of the appellant. After seeing this wife in that stage, the appellant went to inform his brother. Simply because he did not inform the neighbourers it cannot be said to be link in the chain of circumstantial evidence to prove that it was he and he alone who has committed the crime.

In view of what has been noticed above. It is held that the circumstances do not cogently and firmly establish that the appellant has committed the murder of his wife. The circumstances either taken singly or cumulatively do not from a chain so complete that it can be safely held that it is the appellant and the appellant alone who has committed the crime. The prosecution has, therefore, not been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal and while giving the benefit of doubt, acquit the appellant of the charge levelled against him. This also disposes of Crl. Misc. Nos. 352 and 353 of 1988.