Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Harinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1234

Judges: Deepak Gupta, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of Harinder Singh vs. The State of Punjab. The court examined whether the chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution was strong enough to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench, comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, delivered a unanimous judgment upholding the conviction.

Case Background

Sawinder Kaur (PW-3), the widow of Major Singh, filed a complaint on 31 January 2004, stating that her elder son, Gurdev Singh, had been adopted by her husband’s sister, Daljit Kaur, and her husband, Suba Singh. The accused, Harinder Singh, is the son of Lakhwinder Singh, the elder brother of her husband. Harinder Singh and Suba Singh jointly owned a tractor. Sawinder Kaur used to visit Suba Singh’s house to meet Gurdev Singh, who also visited her every 15-20 days.

According to Sawinder Kaur, Harinder Singh had quarreled with Gurdev Singh, accusing him of taking Suba Singh’s land without payment. About 15 days before the complaint, Harinder Singh told Sawinder Kaur that Gurdev Singh had left with friends on a motorcycle and had not returned. When she inquired further, Harinder Singh gave evasive replies. On 31 January 2004, Chanan Singh (PW-4) informed Sawinder Kaur that Harinder Singh had confessed to killing Gurdev Singh with an axe about 22-23 days earlier and burying the body, allegedly in consultation with Suba Singh.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 201 of the IPC, which addresses causing disappearance of evidence of an offense or giving false information to screen the offender.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the circumstances and the appellant’s guilt. Specifically, the appellant contended that:

• The axe, allegedly used in the murder, was not sent for forensic examination.
• There was no clear motive established for the murder.
• The “last seen” theory was not applicable.
• The recovery memo of the body was not signed by independent witnesses.

The prosecution, on the other hand, presented the following circumstances to establish the appellant’s guilt:

• The recovery of Gurdev Singh’s body based on the appellant’s disclosure statement.
• The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Chanan Singh (PW-4).
• The appellant’s motive to prevent Gurdev Singh from inheriting Suba Singh’s property.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following evidence and testimonies:

• Testimony of Sawinder Kaur (PW-3), the complainant.
• Testimony of Chanan Singh (PW-4), who received the extra-judicial confession.
• Testimony of SI Inderjit Singh (PW-10), the investigating officer.
• Testimony of Naib Tehsildar Amarjit Singh (PW-11), who was present during the body’s recovery.
• Disclosure statement (Exh.PD) of the appellant.
• Recovery memo (Exh.PK) of the body.
• Post-mortem report by Dr. Ashok Channana (PW-1).

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied heavily on the following authorities:

• The testimony of Chanan Singh (PW-4), the court found the extra-judicial confession to be credible and reliable.
• The recovery of the body at the instance of the accused, supported by the testimony of Naib Tehsildar Amarjit Singh (PW-11), was considered a key piece of evidence.
• The misleading statements made by the accused to Sawinder Kaur (PW-3), were also considered as circumstantial evidence pointing towards guilt.

The court stated, “In our view these circumstances by themselves form a complete chain which clearly leads to only one inference that it is the accused-appellant alone who could have murdered deceased Gurdev Singh.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The recovery of the body at the instance of the appellant, which was a crucial piece of evidence.
• The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to a close relative, which was deemed credible and reliable.
• The appellant’s misleading statements to the complainant about the whereabouts of the deceased, which indicated an attempt to conceal the crime.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual circumstances of the case, with a focus on the recovery of the body, the extra-judicial confession, and the misleading statements made by the appellant. The legal considerations were secondary, as the court primarily focused on evaluating the evidence presented.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the arguments presented by the appellant, but found them insufficient to outweigh the strong circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court emphasized that the chain of circumstances led to only one conclusion: the guilt of the accused.

The court stated, “From the reading of the entire evidence the following circumstances stand proved beyond reasonable doubt…In our view these circumstances by themselves form a complete chain which clearly leads to only one inference that it is the accused-appellant alone who could have murdered deceased Gurdev Singh.”

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for a murder conviction if it forms a complete chain leading to only one conclusion.
• Extra-judicial confessions, when made to a confidante and supported by other evidence, can be considered credible.
• Misleading statements and actions by an accused can be considered as circumstantial evidence of guilt.
• The recovery of a body at the instance of the accused is a strong piece of evidence.

This judgment reinforces the importance of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, especially when direct evidence is not available. It also highlights the court’s willingness to rely on extra-judicial confessions when they are found to be credible and consistent with other evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant, who was on bail, to surrender forthwith and undergo the remaining sentence. A copy of the judgment was to be sent to the trial court to ensure compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and points unequivocally to the guilt of the accused. This case reinforces the established principle that circumstantial evidence, when strong and consistent, can be as compelling as direct evidence in proving guilt. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In Harinder Singh vs. The State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder based on circumstantial evidence. The court found that the recovery of the body at the appellant’s instance, the extra-judicial confession, and the misleading statements to the complainant formed a complete chain of circumstances proving the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to surrender and serve the remaining sentence.