Sukhvinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Satpal, J.—This appeal filed by Sukhwinder Singh is directed against the judgment dated 2nd June, 1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, in the case FIR No. 97 dated 6th November, 1991, registered at Police Station Goraya u/s 460 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide this judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and three others namely, Jaswinder Singh, Sushil Kumar and Vikram u/s 460 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced each one of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each (in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R1 for six months).

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 6th November, 1991, the complainant Gurmit Singh, who is the brother of the deceased along with one Pritpal Singh, went to Dera in the fields and found that his brother Thakar Singh was lying on the cot in one room and had injuries on his neck, mouth, chest and abdomen with some sharp edged weapons, and as a result of those injuries, he had died. It was also found that one T. V. (Black and white) and one cycle were stolen from the room. At the instance of said Gurmit Singh, FIR was registered on 6th November, 1991 at Police Station Goraya u/s 460 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further alleged that on 17th November, 1991 accused Sukhwinder Singh (appellant) Jaswinder Singh, Sushil Kumar alias Prem and Vikram alias Raju came to one Ranjit Singh, who is a cultivator in the village Atta, and told him that on 5th November, 1991 they had gone to the residence of Thakar Singh, where Thakar Singh served them liquor and after Thakar Singh went asleep, these persons made a scheme to carry away the Television and the cycle of Thakar Singh. Thereafter Sukhwinder Singh (appellant) along with Vikram went to his house and brought two Kirpans. Jaswinder Singh gave two kirpan blows on the neck and face of Thakar Singh and Vikram gave a Kirpan blow in the abdomen of Thakar Singh and as a result, Thakar Singh died on the spot. It is also alleged that during the investigation Ranjit Singh informed the IO Ramesh Chandra on 17th November, 1991 itself about the confessional statement made by the accused before him and thereafter, all the accused were arrested and as a result of dislcosure statement of appellant, Sukhwinder Singh, Cycle Exhibit P. 2 was recovered from a heap of Parali of one Iqbal Singh. Simultaneously as a result of the disclosure statement of Jaswinder Singh, Kirpan was recovered from the same place and as a result of the disclosure statement of Vikram alias Raju, another kirpan was recovered from the same place and pursuant to disclosure statement of Sushil Kumar, T. V. Exhibit P. 1 was recovered simultaneously from the same place.

The prosecution examined inter alia Gurmit Singh, Ranjit Singh, before whom the alleged confession was made by the accused, SI Ramesh Chandra (IO), ASI Gulzar Singh and Balwinder Singh who is alleged to have sold the T. V. in question.

The accused in their statements recorded u/s 313, Cr. P. C. pleaded innocence and each one of them stated that nothing was recovered from them or at their instance. They further stated that they were arrested only on suspicion. They also denied that they had made any confession to Ranjit Singh.

Relying on the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and three other co-accused as stated herein before."

Mr. Sihota, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based on his extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made before P.W. 6 Ranjit Singh and recovery of cycle pursuant to his confessional statement. The learned counsel submitted that evidence of extra-judicial confession in the very nature of things is a weak piece of evidence and as such, reliance should not be placed on such type of evidence unless it is corroborated by some independent evidence. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh and Others, and The State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Others, .

The learned counsel submitted that the extra judicial confession besides being a weak piece of evidence, can be relied upon only if it was voluntary in nature but in the present case the alleged extra-judicial confession was made on 17th November, 1991 as stated by P.W. 6, whereas P.W. 10 SI Ramesh Chander who was the Investigating Officer, had stated that he had investigated the accused on 17th and 28th November, 1991, but nothing came out and thereafter they were subjected to Third Degree methods on 19th November, 1991 and then they made the disclosure statement. He therefore, contended that in such circumstances, the alleged extra-judicial confession could not be voluntary.

The learned counsel further submitted that P.W. 8 ASI Gulzar Singh in his cross-examination, had stated that all the recoveries, i.e. Kirpans, TV and cycle had been recovered from the same heap of Parali belonging to one Iqbal Singh and all the four accused were taken together to the said heap of Parali. He had also stated that the first of all Kirpan was got recovered by Jawinder Singh and thereafter, the remaining articles were recovered at the instance of other accused one by one. He submitted that in case all the articles were lying under the same heap of Parali, once the recovery of Kirpan was made at the instance of Jawinder Singh, the recovery of other articles could not be attributed to the disclosure of other accused as along with the Kirpan other articles would have been recovered simultaneously. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Thimma and Thimma Raju Vs. State of Mysore, .

The learned counsel further submitted that whereas in the FIR it was stated that the cycle belonging to the Gurmit Singh, brother of the deceased, was of Hero make, the cycle alleged to have been recovered as a result of the disclosure statement of the appellant, was of Avon make. He submitted that the cycle allegedly recovered had not been purchased in the name of the deceased or any member of his family and even the purported bill of this cycle was ante-dated.

Lastly the learned counsel submitted that no injury was attributed to the appellant and the appellant had been implicated in this case only for the alleged recovery of cycle which was also of different make from the one mentioned in the FIR. He also drew my attention to Zimni dated 6th November, 1991 and submitted that the appellant and the other three co-accused had been suspected even on 6th November, 1991 itself on the basis of the statement of Pritpal Singh but as per the statement of the I. O., they were not interrogated till 17th November, 1991 when PW Ranjit Singh informed the I. O. about their alleged extra-judicial confession made before him. He also drew my attention to the Zimni purported to be dated 12th November, 1991 and submitted that "the date (12) was clearly interpolated. He, therefore, contended that from these facts, it was clear that the alleged extra-judicial confession had been fabricated and in these circumstances, the benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant and the appellant should be acquitted.

Mr. Garg, learned AAG, referred to the statement of P.W. 6 Ranjit Singh before whom the extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant and other co-accused and submitted that this witness had clearly proved the extra-judicial confession and in his cross-examination nothing had come out in favour of the appellant. He also drew my attention to the disclosure statement made by the appellant and other co-accused and submitted that as a result of the disclosure statement, cycle had been recovered from the appellant. He submitted that the alleged discrepancy in the make of the cycle was a minor discrepancy and as such it should be ignored. The learned counsel contended that though the extra-judicial confession had to be treated as a weak piece of evidence, but there was no rule of law or rule of prudence that it cannot be acted upon unless corroborated. He submitted that the extra-judicial confession was not obtained by coercion and it was voluntary in nature, and as such it should be acted upon. In support of his submission the learned counsel placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. M. K. Anthony 1985 SCC 105 and Madan Lal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey 1992(2) Cri LR 508 (SC) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Anup Singh v. State of Punjab 1989(2) Cri LR 76 (Punj). He, therefore, contended that the conviction of the appellant was based on legal evidence and the appeal, therefore, should be dismissed.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsellor the parties and have .perused the record. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh and Others, , the evidence of extra-judicial confession in the very nature of things is a weak piece of evidence. However, in the case of M.K. Anthony 1985 SCC 105 (supra), it was held that there is no rule of law nor rule of prudence that the extra-judicial confession, though a weak piece of evidence; it cannot be acted upon unless corroborated. In the case of Madan Gopal Kakkad 1992 (2) Cr LR 508 (supra), it was held by the Supreme Court that extra judicial confession can be acted upon provided it has not been obtained by coercion and it is voluntary in nature. In the case of Anup Singh 1989 (2) All I Cri LR 76 (Punj) (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that an accused person can be convicted on the basis of evidence of confession before a private person provided the evidence of the witness inspires confidence of the Court.

Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court as stated herein above, it has to be seen whether in the present case the evidence of extra-judicial confession is voluntary in nature and inspires confidence of the court. In the present case, extra-judicial confession is alleged to have been made by the appellant along with three other co-accused before Ranjit Singh, PW 6. Ranjit Singh, in his statement has stated that on 17th November, 1991, when he was present in his fields, accused Sukhwinder Singh alias Sokhi (appellant)along with other co-accused Jaswinder Singh, Vikram alias Raju and Sushil Kumar alias Prem came to him. Sukhwinder Singh told him that he along with other accused on the occasion of Dewali on 5th November, 1995, had gone to the residence of deceased Thakar Singh, where Thakar Singh served them liquor and he also took the same. Thereafter, in the evening after sunset, Pritpal came there for burning candles and Thakar Singh after taking liquor went asleep. Thereafter, he along with co-accused Vikram went to his house and brought two Kirpans. Jaswinder gave two kirpan blows on the neck and face of the deceased and Vikram accused gave a kirpan blow in the abdomen of the deceased and Thakar Singh expired 6n the spot. Then he picked up the cycle and Sushi I Kumar took the T. V. and left the place of occurrence. It is further stated by Ranjit Singh that (hereafter Jag winder Singh, Sushil and Vikram confessed the same facts one by one and all the four accused requested him to produce them before the police. He took them towards the Police Station and on the way, SI Ramesh Chander met him and thus he produced all the accused before the Police.

From the Zimini dated 6th November, 1991, it is evident that the appellant and the other three accused has been suspected for having committed the murder as per the statement of Pritpal Singh. This Zimini also shows that the I.O. had raided the house of the appellant but he was informed by the parents of the appellant Sukhwinder Singh that he left his house on the evening of Dewali, i.e. 5th November, 1991, but thereafter he had not come to the house. Even the I.O. Ramesh Chander P.W. 10 had also stated in this statement that he recorded the statement of Gurmeet Singh P.W. on 6th November, 1991 and after recording the statements of the P.Ws. he raided for the arrest of the accused at supicious places, but it was only on 17th November, 1991, he along with other Police officials was going towards Rurka Khurd when P.W. 6, Ranjit Singh, met him and informed him about the confessional statements made by all the four accused before him and also produced the said accused before him.

From these facts, it is clear that even according to the prosecution story, the appellant and other accused after the commission of the crime had been hiding themselves. It seems rather odd that all the four accused who had not been arrested till 17th November, 1991, and had concealed the fact of having committed the murder of Thakar Singh, had at the same time taken the decision to make confession before Ranjit Singh. It may be pointed out here that the said Ranjit Singh was not in such a position that all the four accused would be willing to repose their confidence in him. In his cross-examination, this witness himself has admitted that he is neither Panch, Sarpanch or Lambardar of the village nor a worker of any social organisation. He has also admitted that he had no social terms with Jaswinder, Vikram and Sushil Kumar. About Sukhwiner Singh, though he stated that he knew him for the last 4/5 years, but he admitted that he had never gone to his house nor Sukhwinder Singh had visited his house and he was not aware as to whether Sukhwinder Singh was married or he was having children. If the appellant and other accused wanted to surrender themselves before the Police, it is not understood as to why they should not themselves surrender before the Police and instead go to Ranjit Singh and blurt out confession before him and request him to produce them before the Police. From the aforesaid facts, I find the evidence of extra judicial confession to be improbable, lacking credence and does not inspire confidence. The view I have taken finds full support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Punjab Vs. Bhajan Singh and Others, .

Now coming to the recovery of the cycle pursuant to the alleged confessional statement of the appellant made before the I.O., it is clear from the evidence of P.W. 10 Ramesh Chandra (I.O.) that the disclosure statement was made by the appellant on 19th November, 1991 after he was subjected to 3rd Degree methods. In this connection, reference may also be made to the statement of PW. 10, Shri Ramesh Chandra, SI (I.O.) wherein he has stated that "the accused were interrogated on 17th and 18th also. However, they did not disclose anything during that interrogation. They were subjected to Third Decree methods on 19th. It is then they made-the disclosure statement." Even otherwise, the recovery of the cycle is not free from doubt. As stated earlier, in the FIR it was alleged that a cycle of Hero make and T. V. belonging to Gurmeet Singh (brother of the deceased Thakar Singh) had been taken away by the accused. However, the cycle alleged to have been recovered at the instance of Sukhwinder Singh is of Avon make and not Hero make. Besides, the duplicate Bill of the alleged cycle (Exhibit PF) shows that the said Avon black cycle is not in the name of Gurmeet Singh or Thakar Singh deceased, but it is in the name of one Bakhshish Singh. PW. 4 Gurmeet Singh, in his cross-examination, stated that the said Bakshish Singh was alive and had been in his employment at the relevant time and had gone to Sirsa voluntarily after leaving the job, but he did not produce any proof in support of the statement that the said Bakshish Singh was ever in his employment. Even it has not been explained why the cycle was not purchased in the name of its owner and why it was purchased in the name of an employee who was not a permanent one. From these facts, I find that the evidence on which the conviction of the appellant is based, is unworthy of acceptance and it is not possible to uphold his conviction.

For the reasons recorded herein above, I allow the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence dated 2-6-1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith in case he is not required to be detained in any other case.