Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case due to weak circumstantial evidence: Pritinder Singh vs State of Punjab (2023)

Date of the Judgment: July 5, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 614
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sanjay Karol, J.

The Supreme Court of India recently overturned a conviction in a murder case, highlighting the importance of concrete evidence over mere suspicion. The case revolved around the death of Ravinder Singh, and the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, including an alleged extra-judicial confession and the “last seen” theory. The Supreme Court found these pieces of evidence to be weak and insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

The case involves a complex family dynamic. Harbhajan Singh had two wives: Sukhwinder Kaur, with whom he had four children including Tapinder Singh and the deceased Ravinder Singh, and Manjit Kaur, with whom he had two children. Tapinder Singh had moved to the United States in 1990, and his mother followed in 1994. Ravinder Singh remained in India, residing near his father, Harbhajan Singh, and his stepmother, Manjit Kaur.

About a year and a half before the incident, Tapinder Singh returned to the village. Two days before Ravinder Singh’s death, a dispute arose between Ravinder Singh and Manjit Kaur, during which Ravinder allegedly beat Manjit Kaur. Manjit Kaur reportedly threatened Ravinder Singh, stating he would not survive.

On September 3, 1998, Manjit Kaur, along with Pritinder Singh, took Ravinder Singh in a car, under the pretext of buying shoes. Tapinder Singh noticed that Manjit Kaur was carrying her licensed gun in the car. When Ravinder Singh did not return, Tapinder Singh became suspicious.

The next day, Tapinder Singh, along with Gurdeep Singh, searched for Ravinder Singh. They learned from the Mahant of Naga Mahantanwala Dera that the two accused and Ravinder Singh had come to the Dera the previous night. The Mahant also mentioned that Ravinder Singh and Manjit Kaur were arguing and had left, stating they were going to Surjit Singh’s house.

Tapinder Singh and Gurdeep Singh found Ravinder Singh’s dead body near a canal bridge, with two gunshot wounds. The car and the gun were found nearby. An FIR was registered, and both accused were arrested. The postmortem confirmed that the cause of death was gunshot wounds. Forensic analysis confirmed that the cartridges found in the car had been fired from Manjit Kaur’s gun.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court framed charges against the two accused. Relying on the last seen theory, the chain of circumstantial evidence, and an extra-judicial confession, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The accused appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging their conviction and sentence. A revision application was also filed by the complainant, seeking enhancement of the sentence. The High Court dismissed both the appeal and the revision application, affirming the Trial Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. It states:
“Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is also relevant, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states:
“When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

The Supreme Court also discussed the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]. These principles require that the circumstances from which guilt is inferred must be fully established, consistent only with the accused’s guilt, conclusive, and must exclude every other possible hypothesis.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested on the following main arguments:

• Extra-judicial confession: The prosecution argued that the accused, Manjit Kaur, confessed to the crime before PW-2, Mal Singh, stating that she and Pritinder Singh killed Ravinder Singh because he suspected her of having illicit relations.
• Last seen theory: The prosecution contended that the accused were last seen with the deceased before his death, based on the testimonies of PW-3, Tapinder Singh, and PW-9, Jagtar Singh.
• Recovery of the weapon: The prosecution highlighted that the licensed gun of Manjit Kaur, along with the fired cartridges, was recovered from the car in which the accused and the deceased were traveling.

The defense countered with the following arguments:

• Credibility of extra-judicial confession: The defense argued that the extra-judicial confession was unreliable due to the suspicious circumstances surrounding it, such as the witness being from a distant village and not informing the police or family despite having a phone.
• Reliability of last seen witnesses: The defense questioned the credibility of the last seen witnesses, noting that PW-3, the stepson of Manjit Kaur, had strained relations with her, and PW-9 had a criminal background and delayed reporting of the incident.
• Lack of ballistic evidence: The defense pointed out that the prosecution failed to produce a ballistic expert to confirm that the bullets found in the deceased’s body were fired from the recovered gun.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the defense’s ability to dismantle the prosecution’s case by highlighting the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the evidence presented, especially regarding the extra-judicial confession and the reliability of the last-seen witnesses.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the extra-judicial confession and the last seen theory, was sustainable.
2. Whether the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the failure to examine a ballistic expert was a significant flaw in the prosecution’s case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] to emphasize that the circumstances from which guilt is inferred must be fully established, consistent only with the accused’s guilt, conclusive, and must exclude every other possible hypothesis. The Court used Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793] to highlight the difference between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ proved.

The Court used Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2012) 6 SCC 174], along with Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp (4) SCC 259], Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. [(1997) 8 SCC 158], Kavita v. State of T.N. [(1998) 6 SCC 108], State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [(2003) 8 SCC 180], Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. [(2007) 12 SCC 230], Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan [(2010) 10 SCC 604], Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 5 SCC 740], Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. [(2011) 11 SCC 754] and Pancho v. State of Haryana [(2011) 10 SCC 165] to discuss the nature and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, emphasizing the need for caution and corroboration.

The Court referred to Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab [(1995) 3 SCC 367] to underscore the importance of ballistic expert’s opinion in cases involving firearms. While acknowledging that this case was distinguished by a three-judge bench in Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2022) 12 SCC 677], the court noted that the present case was based on circumstantial evidence and the failure to examine the ballistic expert was a major flaw.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court found the extra-judicial confession to be unreliable due to the suspicious circumstances and the conduct of the witness. The Court also found the testimonies of the last seen witnesses to be unreliable due to their strained relations with the accused and their criminal background. The absence of a ballistic expert’s opinion, which could have linked the recovered gun to the crime, was also a significant factor in the Court’s decision.

The Court emphasized that mere suspicion cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated the importance of establishing a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The Court also highlighted the need for caution while relying on extra-judicial confessions and the importance of corroborating evidence.

The sentiment analysis reveals that the court was primarily concerned with the factual weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, particularly the unreliability of witnesses and the lack of corroborating evidence. The legal considerations, such as the principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence and the importance of expert testimony, also played a significant role in the court’s decision.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them due to the lack of credibility and corroboration. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court stated, “It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.” The court also noted, “From the evidence of PW-2, we find that it cannot be said that the extra -judicial confession is one which could be found to be credible.” Further, the court observed, “We find that the conviction on the basis of such evidence cannot be sustained.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. Both judges concurred in allowing the appeals and acquitting the accused.

The Court’s decision highlights the importance of concrete evidence over mere suspicion in criminal cases. The Court’s analysis of the extra-judicial confession and the last seen theory provides valuable guidance for future cases involving circumstantial evidence. The Court’s emphasis on the need for ballistic evidence in cases involving firearms underscores the importance of thorough investigation.

Key Takeaways

• Convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
• Extra-judicial confessions must be scrutinized carefully and require corroboration.
• Testimonies of witnesses with strained relations or criminal backgrounds must be approached with caution.
• In cases involving firearms, ballistic expert’s opinion is crucial.
• The chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete and exclude every other reasonable hypothesis.

The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future cases involving circumstantial evidence. It reinforces the importance of thorough investigation and the need for credible evidence to secure a conviction. The judgment also serves as a reminder of the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and the judgment of the Trial Court be quashed and set aside. The bail bonds of the appellants were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that excludes every other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The Court also emphasized that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by other reliable evidence and that testimonies of witnesses with strained relations or criminal backgrounds must be approached with caution. The Court further highlighted the importance of ballistic evidence in cases involving firearms. This judgment reinforces the existing principles of law regarding circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions, without introducing any new legal principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused, Pritinder Singh and Manjit Kaur, in a murder case, citing weak circumstantial evidence, unreliable witnesses, and the lack of ballistic evidence. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that a complete chain of circumstances must be established to prove the guilt of the accused. The judgment serves as a reminder of the high standard of proof required in criminal cases and the importance of thorough investigation and credible evidence.