Date of the Judgment: 06 December 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 978
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the death of an elderly woman, where the prosecution’s case rested on a chain of circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession. The court upheld the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the importance of a complete chain of events and corroborating evidence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Hemant Gupta, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Surjit Kaur, an elderly woman who was found dead in a field. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on March 28, 2005, by Jarnail Singh, a member of Nagar Palika, who discovered a foul smell emanating from a field he had leased. Upon investigation, a decomposed body was found in a jute bag. The deceased was later identified as Surjit Kaur, the mother of one of the accused, Avtar Singh. The prosecution alleged that Surjit Kaur was murdered due to a property dispute and non-payment of lease money by her son. The accused included Avtar Singh, his wife Swaran Kaur, their son Jagmohan Singh, and a servant named Darshan Singh. The prosecution contended that the accused were unhappy with Surjit Kaur inheriting land from her other son, Gurmit Singh, who died issueless.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003 | Gurmit Singh, son of Surjit Kaur, dies issueless. |
| Prior to March 15, 2005 | Surjit Kaur leases 4 Bighas of land to her son Avtar Singh at Rs.4,000 per Bigha. |
| March 15, 2005 | Surjit Kaur complains to Sarpanch Harpal Singh about non-payment of lease money by Avtar Singh. |
| March 20, 2005 | Kuldeep Singh (son-in-law of Surjit Kaur) meets Surjit Kaur in Panchayat, Village Sahauran. |
| March 22, 2005 | Sukhdev Singh witnesses a man and woman on a TVS motorcycle carrying a gunny bag. |
| March 28, 2005, 12:35 pm | Jarnail Singh lodges an FIR after discovering a foul smell and a jute bag in a field. |
| March 29, 2005 | Kuldeep Singh identifies the dead body of his mother-in-law, Surjit Kaur, in the mortuary. |
| March 30, 2005 | Postmortem conducted on Surjit Kaur’s body. Bhupinder Singh produces Darshan Singh, Jagmohan Singh, and Swaran Kaur before police. Swaran Kaur makes disclosure statement leading to recovery of acid. |
| March 31, 2005 | Avtar Singh is arrested. |
| April 1, 2005 | Jagmohan Singh discloses the location of his TVS motorcycle, and Darshan Singh discloses the location of a folding iron chair. |
| May 23, 2007/May 26, 2007 | The Sessions Judge acquits Avtar Singh but convicts Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur, and Darshan Singh. |
| February 19, 2009 | The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismisses the appeals filed by the convicted appellants. |
| October 4, 2010 | Swaran Kaur released on bail by the Supreme Court. |
| December 6, 2019 | The Supreme Court dismisses the appeals and upholds the conviction. |
Course of Proceedings
The Sessions Judge acquitted Avtar Singh but convicted Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur, and Darshan Singh. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana upheld the convictions, relying on the statements of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13), Bhupinder Singh (PW-16), and the motive established by Harpal Singh (PW-11). The convicted individuals then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the application of circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions in criminal law. The relevant legal provision is Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which pertains to the examination of witnesses by the police.
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:
“161. Examination of witnesses by police.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section, and if he does so, he shall make a separate record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.”
Arguments
The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of events linking them to the crime. They contended that the extra-judicial confession was weak evidence and that the person before whom the confession was made was not unbiased. They also argued that the motive was not clearly established and that the medical evidence was inconsistent with the prosecution’s story of strangulation.
The State argued that the circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of acid based on Swaran Kaur’s disclosure, the presence of the accused near the crime scene, and the extra-judicial confession, sufficiently proved the guilt of the accused. They also contended that the motive was established through the testimony of the Sarpanch and the son-in-law of the deceased.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants’ Arguments | Failure of Chain of Events | The prosecution failed to complete the chain of events to lead to the conclusion that only the appellants committed the crime. |
| Weak Extra-Judicial Confession | Extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence and can be the basis of conviction only if the person before whom the confession is made appears to be unbiased. | |
| Inconsistent Medical Evidence | The postmortem report indicates poisoning, and there is no evidence of how the poison was administered. If the death was due to strangulation, the presence of poison negates the prosecution story. | |
| State’s Arguments | Circumstantial Evidence | The statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW-14), though he could not identify the accused, is relevant to the extent that he had seen a man and a woman on a TVS motorcycle carrying a gunny bag. |
| Motive | Harpal Singh (PW-11) deposed about the motive of the offense as the deceased had inherited the property of Gurmit Singh. The deceased had approached the Sarpanch for non-payment of lease money by the accused. | |
| Extra-Judicial Confession | The extra-judicial confession made by the accused is reliable and supported by other evidence. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
- Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was reliable and admissible as evidence?
- Whether the circumstantial evidence and the motive established by the prosecution were sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? | Yes | The Court found that the prosecution had established a complete chain of events, including the motive, the extra-judicial confession, the recovery of acid, and the conduct of the accused after the incident. |
| Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the accused was reliable and admissible as evidence? | Yes | The Court held that the extra-judicial confession was reliable, especially since it was corroborated by other evidence, including the medical evidence and the recovery of the chair. |
| Whether the circumstantial evidence and the motive established by the prosecution were sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused? | Yes | The Court concluded that the circumstantial evidence, combined with the motive and extra-judicial confession, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 341] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the appellants to argue that extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence. | Extra-judicial confession as a weak evidence. |
| S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 8 SCC 233] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the appellants to argue that extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence. | Extra-judicial confession as a weak evidence. |
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the appellants to argue how circumstantial evidence can be made basis for conviction. | Circumstantial evidence. |
| Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2019 SCC OnLine 39] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the appellants to argue how circumstantial evidence can be made basis for conviction. | Circumstantial evidence. |
| Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2018 SCC OnLine SC 1730] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the State to contend that extra-judicial confession need not be corroborated in all cases. | Extra-judicial confession. |
| Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey [(1992) 3 SCC 204] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to in Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh to state that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. | Extra-judicial confession. |
| Piara Singh v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 452] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey to state that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. | Extra-judicial confession. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction of Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur (though she died during the pendency of the appeal), and Darshan Singh. The Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstances, including the motive, the extra-judicial confession, the recovery of acid, and the conduct of the accused after the incident.
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events so as to lead only one conclusion that the appellants and the appellants alone have committed the crime. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the prosecution had established a complete chain of events, including the motive, the extra-judicial confession, the recovery of acid, and the conduct of the accused after the incident. |
| Extra judicial confession is a weak evidence and can be made basis of conviction if the person before whom confession is made appear to be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused. | The Court held that the extra-judicial confession was reliable, especially since it was corroborated by other evidence, including the medical evidence and the recovery of the chair. |
| No motive can be attributed to the accused as the deceased was last seen by Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) on 20th March, 2005 and as per medical evidence, the probable time of death is 20th March 2005 or so. | The Court found that the motive was established through the testimony of the Sarpanch and the son-in-law of the deceased. The Court also noted that the appellants were not found in the village soon after the occurrence. |
| As per postmortem report (Ex. PJ), cause of death is poisoning due to Aluminium Phosphide insecticide, haemorrhage and haemo-thorax, but there is no evidence as to how the poison was administered nor there was any recovery of poison. | The Court noted that there was no evidence of administering Aluminum Phosphide but the postmortem report indicates fracture of Hyoid bone. The Court also stated that the Dupatta around the neck of the deceased had two turns which is unusual for a woman. |
| The evidence of last seen has not been believed by the trial court. | The Court stated that the fact that a jute bag was thrown by a man and a woman on a TVS motorcycle is relevant in the chain of events in support of the prosecution case. |
The Court relied on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to Bhupinder Singh (PW-16). The Court observed that the extra-judicial confession of Darshan Singh was supported by medical evidence, which indicated a fracture of the Hyoid bone, an irregular wound over the left breast, and a fracture of the 6th and 7th ribs. The Court also noted that Darshan Singh had disclosed the location of a folding iron chair, which was recovered, further corroborating his confession.
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 341] | The Court distinguished the case and held that the extra-judicial confession was reliable in this case. |
| S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 8 SCC 233] | The Court distinguished the case and held that the extra-judicial confession was reliable in this case. |
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] | The Court distinguished the case and held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient in this case. |
| Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2019 SCC OnLine 39] | The Court distinguished the case and held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient in this case. |
| Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2018 SCC OnLine SC 1730] | The Court relied upon this case to state that the evidence of extra-judicial confession need not in all cases be corroborated. |
| Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey [(1992) 3 SCC 204] | The Court relied upon this case to state that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. |
| Piara Singh v. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 452] | The Court relied upon this case to state that the law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the combination of circumstantial evidence, the extra-judicial confession, and the conduct of the accused. The fact that the accused were not found in the village after the incident, did not attend the cremation, and that the extra-judicial confession was corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the chair and acid bottle all weighed heavily in the court’s mind. The Court also considered the motive for the crime, which was the property dispute and non-payment of lease money.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Circumstantial Evidence | 30% |
| Extra-Judicial Confession | 40% |
| Motive | 20% |
| Conduct of Accused | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law. The Court considered the evidence of the witnesses, the medical evidence, and the extra-judicial confession. The Court also considered the conduct of the accused after the incident.
Issue: Whether the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
Step 1: Examination of Circumstantial Evidence
Step 2: Analysis of Extra-Judicial Confession
Step 3: Evaluation of Motive
Step 4: Assessment of Conduct of Accused
Conclusion: Prosecution established a complete chain of events.
The Court stated, “There is no evidence led by the prosecution of administering Aluminum Phosphide but the postmortem report indicates fracture of Hyoid bone.” The Court also noted, “As per postmortem report, the Dupatta around the neck of the deceased had two turns which is unusual for a woman, more so, for a woman of the age of deceased.” Further, the Court observed that, “the bottle of acid was recovered on the basis of disclosure made by accused Swaran Kaur. The photographs that were taken showed disfigurement of the face of the deceased.”
The Court considered the argument that the witness of last seen could not identify the appellants. However, the Court stated that, “the fact remains that he identified that a jute bag was thrown by a man and a woman who came on a TVS Motorcycle. Therefore, even though the witness could not identify the appellants in court as the persons who had thrown the jute bag, the fact that the jute bag was thrown by a man and a woman on a TVS motorcycle is relevant in chain of events in support of the prosecution case.”
Key Takeaways
- Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if a complete chain of events is established.
- Extra-judicial confessions are admissible as evidence, especially when corroborated by other evidence.
- Motive plays a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused.
- Conduct of the accused after the incident is a relevant factor in determining their guilt.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that Darshan Singh and Jagmohan Singh shall now surrender to undergo the remaining sentence.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession if the prosecution is able to establish a complete chain of events. The Court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession need not be corroborated in all cases. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab reinforces the principle that a conviction for murder can be based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession, provided that the prosecution establishes a complete chain of events and the evidence is credible and consistent. The court’s decision highlights the importance of a thorough investigation and the careful evaluation of all evidence presented in a criminal trial.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Murder
Child Category: Circumstantial Evidence
Child Category: Extra-Judicial Confession
Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Child Category: Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
FAQ
Q: Can someone be convicted of murder based only on circumstantial evidence?
A: Yes, a person can be convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution establishes a complete chain of events that leads to the conclusion that the accused committed the crime.
Q: What is an extra-judicial confession?
A: An extra-judicial confession is a confession made by an accused person outside of court, such as to a friend, family member, or a witness.
Q: Is an extra-judicial confession enough to convict someone?
A: An extra-judicial confession can be the basis of a conviction, especially when it is corroborated by other evidence. However, the court must carefully assess the reliability of the confession and the person to whom it was made.
Q: What is the role of motive in a murder case?
A: Motive is an important factor in a murder case. It can help the court understand why the accused committed the crime and can strengthen the prosecution’s case.
Q: What does the “chain of events” mean in a criminal trial?
A: The “chain of events” refers to the sequence of facts and circumstances that, when considered together, establish the guilt of the accused. Each piece of evidence must link to the next to form a clear picture of the crime.