Holding

The convictions under sections 302 and 201 IPC cannot be sustained as the prosecution evidence is unreliable and insufficient.

Summary

The Special Court convicted Mukhtar Singh and several relatives under IPC sections 302 and 201 for the death of Pritam Kaur, relying mainly on the testimony of the deceased's cousin (PW‑3) and alleged extra‑judicial confessions. The Supreme Court examined the reliability of PW‑3, noting his failure to report the incident despite being the village sarpanch and his inconsistent statements, and found his evidence unreliable. The Court also rejected the prosecution's extra‑judicial confession evidence as tainted and held that the medical report did not conclusively link the accused to the injuries, as the absence of bony fractures supported the defence version of an accidental fall. The alleged haste in cremation and the accused’s conduct were deemed insufficient to infer a guilty conscience. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain the convictions and allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences.

Issues considered

Whether the eye‑witness testimony of PW‑3 is reliable enough to support a conviction under IPC sections 302 and 201.
Whether the alleged extra‑judicial confession recorded by PW‑7 can be relied upon.
Whether the medical evidence establishes that the injuries were caused by assault rather than an accidental fall.
Whether the conduct of the accused, particularly the alleged haste in cremation, indicates a guilty conscience sufficient for conviction.
Whether the investigation was tainted, rendering the prosecution case unsustainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 313
Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984s. 14

Subjects

murderculpable homicideeye‑witness reliabilityextra‑judicial confessionmedical evidencecriminal appealTerrorist Affected Areas Act

Judgment

MUKHTIAR SINGH AND ORS . A
• v.
STATE OF PUNJAB

NOVEMBER 30, 1995

[DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] B

I.P.C.-Section 302 and 201-Allegation that the in-laws caused the
death of the deceased-Cousin of deceased was the eye- witnes~lncident not
told to anyone by the cousin-Held, conduct of the cousin is unnatural and
his evidence is not reliable-Body cremated one day after the death-Held, c
there was no undue haste in cremation.

It was the case of the prosecution that P.W. 3 was the cousin brother
of the deceased. On March 11, 1984 at around 5 p.m., he heard noise from
the side of the house of the appellant and went there. It is alleged that he
saw that the appellant No. 1 (who was the husband of the deceased) and D
his family members were assaulting the deceased with "dangs" and as a
result of the assault, she fell down. He allegedly protested but to no avail.
P.W. 3, thereafter, left for his village and on way he narrated the incidence
to P.W.4. However, he did not report incident either to the police or to the
relatives of the deceased. E
It was further alleged by the prosecution that when the body was
being crem"ted by the accused at 2 p.m. on March 12, 1984, on being
informed about the fate of his daughter by one X, the father of the deceased
along with few others reached the spot and on seeing them the appellants
ran away. The matter was thereafter, reported to the police and a case was F
registered against the appellant.

During trial the prosecution examined one witness to show that the
deceased was being ill-treated by her in-laws. The witness in his evidence,
mentioned that the deceased had informed him that she was slapped about
G
fifteen days prior to the occurrence. P.W. 7 was examined to prove the
alleged extra- judicial confession made by some of the appellants.
j..

The Special Court convicted the appellant No. 1 under Section 302
I.P.C. c.nd the remaining appellants under Section 201 I.P.C. The appel-
lants appealed to this court under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected H
827
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Areas (Specific Courts) Act, 1984.
Allowing the appeal, this court
• -
HELD : 1. The only incident upon which the allegations of the
deceased being maltreated were based, was allegedly a slap given to the
B deceased about fifteen days prior to the occurrence. If in nine years of
married life, this was the only incident which could be recounted, it may
be said that the allegations regarding maltreatment of the deceased by the
~.
appellants have not been proved. [832-D]

2. Evidence of P.W. 3 does not at all inspire any confidence. His
c conduct belies his testimony. Though closely related to the deceased he did
not inform about what he had seen to anyone at all except to P.W.4 who has
in his deposition belied the statement of P.W. 3; he did not raise any alarm
when injuries were being caused to the deceased and though the police
station is at a distance of 5 kms. from the village and he, besides being
relative of the deceased is also the sarpanch of the village, he did not go to
D ....
lodge any report. Not only did he keep quiet about it on the date of the
occurrence but on his own showing, even on the next day he did not convey
the information to anyone till his statement came to be recorded during the
inquest proceedings at the cremation ground. [833-C; 832-G-H; 833-A]

E 3. P.W. 7 has been examined by the prosecution to support its version
regarding the alleged extra judicial confession made by some of the appel-
lants to him and his producing the appellants before the police. The
investigating agency falsely introduced this witness to lent support to
another false witness, P.W3 and thereby exposed the tainted nature of
investigation. [833-D; F] '
F
4. The medical evidence is neither decisive nor conclusive and it fails
to connect the appellants with the crime and does not go against the
defence version of the deceased having died instantaneously as a result of
the fall. The absence of any bony injury is more consistent with the defence _,
version than the prosecution case. [834-B]
G
5. The conduct of an accused is indeed a relevant consideration to be
taken note of by the courts while considering the correctness or otherwise .t
of the prosecution version but in this case evidence led by the prosecution
':
to demonstrate the guilty conscience of the appellants is wholly unsatisfac-
H tory. Had the accused any intention to cremate the body "secretly" or in "hot
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE 829

haste", as found by the trial court, nothing prevented them from disposing A
the dead body during the night intervening 11th and 12th March 1984. The
prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the appellants had run
away from the cremation ground on the arrival of the relatives of the
deceased. On the contrary it appears, as stated by the appellants themsel-
ves in their ;;tatements recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that they had B
been arrested from the cremation ground itself and taken into custody by
the investigating officer. The prosecution has thus failed to establish any
incriminating conduct on the part of the appellants. [834-D; G; 835-E-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
480 of 1985. c
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.6.85 of the Special Court, in
Ferozepore Zone, Faridkot, Punjab in Case No. 20 of 25.7.84 R.T. No. 3
of 10.12.84.

R.L. Kohli and R.C. Kohli for the Appellants. D
Mrs. Arnita Gupta and R.S. Suri for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The appellants along with Gurmukh Singh and Sunder Singh were E
sent up for trial before the learned Additional Judge of the Special Court,
Ferozepur Zone, Faridkot for various offences in connection with the death
of Pritam Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh appellant. Gurmukh Singh and
Sunder Singh were acquitted of all the charges. Appellant Mukhtiar Singh
was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer p
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo
six months R.I. The remaining appellants Kartar Singh, Ran Singh, Dhan
Singh and Piara Singh were convicted for the offence under Section 201
IPC and sentenced to two years RI each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each
and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month G
each. They have filed this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected
Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 challenging their conviction and sentence.

- The prosecution case is that Pritam Kaur deceased was married to
Mukhtiar Singh appellant. She was the cousin sister of Kartar Singh PW3
and Badri Singh PW5. The relationship between Mukhtiar Singh and H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Pritam Kaur - deceased were said to be strained and the deceased was
being maltreated in her matrimonial home. One 11.3.84, Kartar Singh PW3
- a cousin of the deceased and Sarpanch of the village was irrigating his
field at about 5 p.m. when he heard noise from the side of the House of
the appellants and went there. He found all the appellants present armed
with dangs. In his presence, Kartar Singh appellant exhorted his sons to
B finish Pritam Kaur deceased and thereupon his sons assaulted the deceased
with dangs on various parts of her body. Appellant Mukhtiar Singh dealt
a dang blow on the back of the neck of Pritam Kaur as a result of which
she fell down and died. Kartar Singh PW3 protested but was told to mind
his own affairs by the appellants. He left for the village and on the way,
met Bhag Singh PW 4 and narrated the occurrence to him. On 12.3.84
C Badri Singh PW5 had gone to village Mansinghwala to have a round of his
land which was under cultivation of his brother, Kartar Singh PW 3. After
having a round of the fields, he went to the house of his cousin, Pritam
Kaur deceased and on reaching there, found the dead body of his cousin
'Pritam Kaur lying near the door of the residential room. It was covered
D with a chaddar. Badri Singh PW 5 removed the chaddar from the face of
the deceased and noticed some stiffness at the back of the neck. He
became suspicious and immediately left for village Sandahwan to inform
Harnam Singh - father of the deceased. Accompanied by Harnam Singh,
Bhagwan Singh, Balwant Singh, Wazir Singh and some others he came back
to village Mansinghwala and on reaching there, learnt that the dead body
E had already been removed for cremation. They all then went to the
cremation ground, reaching there at about 2 p.m. The dead body was on
the funeral pyre. Gurmukh Singh, Piara Singh, Sunder Singh, Kartar Singh,
Dhan Singh and Ran Singh (accused) were feeding fire to the pyre. On
seeing Badri Singh, Balwant Singh PWs and others, they all ran away
leaving the dead body on the pyre and a tractor trolly nearby. The fire was
F extinguished and the half burnt dead body was removed from the pyre.
Leaving Balwant Singh, Wazir Singh and Harnam Singh to take care of the
dead body, Badri Singh PW5, accompanied by Sunder Singh PW went to
report the incident to the police. When they both reached near Sadiq
Chowk, Harbhagwan Singh SHO, Police Station, Sadiq met them. Badri
G Singh made a statement before him Ex. 25, which was sent by the SHO to
the Police Station and on the basis thereof a formal FIR Ex. P5/B was
registered. SI Harbhagwan Singh PW9 thereupon took up the investigation
in hand and rushed to the cremation ground. He took possession of the
dead body and after preparing an inquest report Ex. P3 sent the dead body
to Faridkot for post mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body
H was conducted by a panel of three doctors, under the supervision of Dr.
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE 831

J.S. Dalal, PW 1. The medical board, after post mortem examination, gave A
the opinion that the cause of death was coma as a result of dislocation of
the 2nd and 3rd cervical vertibreas and that the injuries were ante mortem
in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
On completion of the investigation, the appellants were sent up for trial.
Mst. Lachmi, wife of Kartar Singh was discharged at the initial stages itself
' by the trial court. B
The prosecution, with a view to connect the appellants with the
crime, relied upon :

(i) Motive;
c
(ii) Direct Evidence of assault on the deceased ;

(ii) Extra Judicial Confession;
>
(iv) Medical evidence;
D
(v) Conduct of the appellants

Kartar Singh appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. which
was also adopted by Mukhtiar Singh and his other sons denied the prosecu-
tion allegations and gave the defence version to the effect that the deceased
E
had slipped from the last step of the bamboo stair-case while climbing on
to the roof of the house and had fallen down and ;!l.stantaneously died. His
sons Mukhtiar Singh and others were at that time not at the house and
were irrigating their fields. He sent information to them about the death
of Pritam Kaur on receipt of which, they all returned to the house. He went
on to say that he had informed Kartar Singh PW3 - sarpanch of the village F
who was a cousin of the deceased and requested him to inform the parents
of the deceased and after waiting till about 2 p.m. on the next day i.e. for
about 20 hours, they took the dead body for cremation and that while the
dead body was being cremated, the appellants arrived there along with
... some relations of the deceased and the police and after taking the dead
body into custody the police arrested them. He denied that the relations
G

between Mukhtiar Singh and the deceased were strained. Mukhtiar Singh
appellant also gave a similar version in his statement under Section 313 Cr.
P.C. and asserted that the deceased was never maltreated.

(i) Motive According to the prosecution case, the relationship be- H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A tween the deceased and her husband Mukhtiar Singh appellant were
strained and the deceased had told her brother Balwant Singh that she was
being maltreated by her husband, father-in-law and other members of the
family. The evidence to prove motive is rather scanty. Mukhtiar Singh and
the deceased were married for more than 9 years. they had two sons and
a daughter. Expect for Balwant Singh PW, no one else, not even Kartar
B Singh PW 3, Sarpanch of the Village and cousin of the deceased has spoken
about any maltreatment of the deceased. Even Balwant Singh PW had to
admit : "My sister was never given any beating in my presence. She had
informed me about the beating when she came to our village prior to her
death. We had not taken any panchayat when Pritam Kaur came to the
C village after the beating. I had informed my father what my sister had told
me about the maltreatment but no body had gone to Mansinghwala to meet
accused Kartar Singh and his sons to advise them against the maltreat-
ment." No neighbour has come forward to support Balwant Singh either.
According to Balw~nt Singh PW, the only incident upon which the allega-
D tions of the deceased being maltreated were based was allegedly a slap
given to the deceased about fifteen days prior to the occurrence. If in 9
years of married life, this was the only incident which could be recounted,
we are of the opinion that the allegations regarding maltreatment of the
deceased by the appellants have not been proved. The prosecution has,
thus failed to prove that Mukhtiar Singh appellant had any motive, let alone
E a 'strong motive' to commit the murder of the deceased. The finding of the
trial court to the contrary is not based on any evidence and is a conjectural
finding. '-

(ii) Direct evidence - The prosecution examined PW3 as the sole .
.----
F eye-witness of the occurrence. According to his testimony, it was in his
presence that the deceased was given dang blows by Mukhtiar Singh and
his brothers on the exhortation of Kartar Singh, father of Mukhtiar Singh.
He gave in graphic details the manner in which various injuries had been
....
caused to the deceased. The trial court found him to be an unreliable ")
witness and rightly so. His conduct belies his testimony. Though closely
G related to the deceased he did not inform about what he had seen to .4..

anyone at all except to Bhag Singh PW 4 who has in his deposition belied
the statement of Kartar Singh PW 3 and stated that PW3 had not told him
as to how the deceased had died. According to Kartar Singh PW3, he did
not raise any alarm when injuries were being caused to the deceased and
H though the police station Sadiq is at a distance of 5 kms. from the village
MUKHTIARSINGHv. STATE 833

and he besides being relative of the deceased is also the sarpanch of the A
village, he did not go to lodge any report. He admitted that he had not
inform any lambardar or any other person in the village about the incident.
During the cross-examination, he also admitted that he had not even
informed the parents of Pritam Kaur about her death and did not even
disclose what he had seen at the house of Kartar Singh, to his wife. Not
B
only did he keep quiet about it on the date of the occurrence but on his
own showing, even on the next day he did not convey the information to
anyone till his statement came to be recorded during the inquest proceed-
ings at the cremation ground. The trial court, rightly commented upon the
unnatural behaviour of the witness and held that he had no occasion to
witness the incident and his evidence was not at all reliable. We agree. C
evidence of Kartar Singh PW 3 does not at all inspire any confidence and
we have no hesitation to rule the ocular testimony as provided by him out
of consideration.

(iii) Extra judicial con/ession - Chirag Singh PW7 has been examined
by the prosecution to support its version regarding the alleged extra judicial D
confession made by some of the appellants to him and his producing the
appellants before the police. After considering his evidence in detail, the
trial court opined :

"It is also thus not possible to place any reliance on the evidence E
of Chirag Singh PW that accused Kartar Singh and his sons
Mukhtiar Singh, Ran Singh and Dhan Singh had made any extra
judicial confession before him."

We are in complete agreement with the above finding of the trial court
which is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on the record. In F
our opinion the investigating agency falsely introduced this witness to lend
support to another false witness, Kartar Singh PW 3 and thereby exposed
the tainted nature of investigation.

(iv) Medical evidence - According to PWl, Dr. Dalal, the cause of
death was coma as a result of dislocation of 2nd/3rd cervical vertibra which G
was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. The doctor then opined the possibility of the dislocation
of second and third vertibares due to lathi blow cannot ruled out, but since
the body was in a burnt condition it was not possible to specify the exact
type of the weapon with which the injury may have been caused. During H
834 surREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. ....._

A the cross-examination, PWl admitted the possibility of injuries No.l, 2 and
3 on the dead body of Pritam Kaur having been suffered in a fall from a
height cannot be ruled out. At the places where injuries No.1 and 2 were
located no bony injury was found. Thus, we find that the medical evidence
is neither decisive nor conclusive and it fails to connect the appellants with
....
the crime and does not go against the defence version of the deceased
B having died instantaneously as a result of the fall. The absence of any bony
injury is more consistent with the defence version than the prosecution
"'
case.

(v) Conduct of the appellants - According to the prosecution, the
c conduct of the appellants in (i) cremating the body in 'hot haste' without
waiting for the relations of the deceased and (ii) running away from the
cremation ground at the arrival of Balwant Singh PW5 and others, estab-
lishes their guilty conscience and positively connects them with the crime.
..
The conduct of an accused is indeed a relevant consideration to be
D taken note of by the courts while considering the correctness or otherwise
of the prosecution version but in this case evidence led by the prosecution
to demonstrate the guilty conscience of the appellants is wholly unsatisfac-
tory.

The deceased had died at about 5 p.m. on 11.3.84. According to the
E accused, they had requested Kartar Singh PW3 to inform the parents of
the deceased. Kartar Singh PW3 has of course denied that he was told to
inform the parent of the deceased. Even if we believe PW3 in that behalf, "
it does not stand to reason that PW3, a first cousin of the deceased and
sarpanch of the village, would not have sent any information to the parents
F of the deceased about her death. That apart, admittedly the dead body was
not removed to the cremation ground till 2 p.m. on 12.3.84 i.e. till nearby
twenty hours after the death, we fail to appreciate how then could the trial
court hold that the cremation was conducted in 'hot haste'. The accused ·
had apparently waited for sufficient time after the death to cremate the
dead body. Had the accused any intention to cremate the body "secretly"
G ~
or in "h.ot haste", as found by the trial court, nothing prevented them from
disposing the dead body during the night intervening 11th and 12th March
1984. We are of the considered opinion that the finding of the trial court.
is based on surmises and conjectures and is unsustainable.

H In so far as the allegation that the appellants had run away from the
MUKHTIAR SINGH v. STATE 835

cremation ground on the arrival of PW5, PW6 and others, it also has not A
been established.

Evidence of Badri Singh PW 5 and Balwant Singh PW 6 was pressed
into aid to show the conduct of the appellants at the time of cremation
after the arrival of the relations of the deceased. Both these witnesses
stated that on the arrival of the relations at the cremation ground, the B
appellants ran away leaving the tractor trolly and the dead body burning
on the pyre unattended. However, Kartar Singh Sarpanch PW3, who was
also present at the time of cremation, state that he was present at the
cremation ground on 12.3.84 and had found the appellants and many other
persons present there at that time. He did not state that the appellants had C
run away from the place of occurrence and on the other hand deposed that
the accused were taken into custody by the police from the cremation
ground itself.

Of course, PW9 Harbhagwan Singh SI in his statement deposed that
Piara Singh had been arrested on 15.3.84 and the other appellants on D
18.3.84 but conceded in the light of the statement given by Kartar Singh
PW 3 that the accused had been taken away by the police from the
cremation ground itself completely belies the assertion of the investigating
officer PW9 as well as the statements of PW 5 and PW6. The prosecution
has miserably failed to establish that the appellants had run away from the E
cremation ground at the arrival of the relations of the deceased on the
contrary it appears, as stated by the ·appellants themselves in their state-
ments recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that they had been arrested
from the cremation ground itself and taken into custody by the investigating
officer. The prosecution has thus failed to establish any incriminating
conduct on the part of the appellants. F

In view of the above discussion, we find that the investigating agency
not only attempted to introduce false eye-witness but also made crude
attempts to press into aid alleged extra judicial confession made by the
appellants to PW7 besides putting forward the objectionable conduct of G
the appellants. The investigation, in the case, in our opinion, has been
tainted and that taint detracts materially from the reliability of the prosecu-
tion case as a whole.

The prosecution evidence on the record is wholly insufficient to bring
home the charge against· the appellants. The trial court ·fell in error even H
-
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A after noticing the serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence, to have
convicted the appellants. their conviction and sentence cannot be sus-
tained. This appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence
of the appellants is set aside. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds
shall stand discharged.

B B.K.M. Appeal allowed.