Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
13. 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. There appears to be no reason as to why the accused persons would go 100 kms. away and confess to him. Apart from that, his conduct also appears to be unnatural. Though IO Amritpal Singh (PW-11) was known to him and the telephone which was installed in his house was in a working condition, he did not find it necessary to inform him through telephone. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the courts below have erred in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to PW-2.
14. That leaves with us another circumstantial evidence, i.e. the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased and the deceased was found dead shortly thereafter. In this respect, the prosecution relies on the evidence of complainant Tapinder Singh (PW-3) and Jagtar Singh (PW-9). PW-3 is the step-son of appellant Manjit Kaur. He has himself admitted in his evidence that the relations between him and appellant Manjit Kaur were strained. As per his version, there used to be a quarrel between Ravinder Singh and appellant Manjit Kaur. He has stated that Ravinder Singh used to give beatings to Manjit Kaur. He has further stated in his evidence that Manjit Kaur had told his brother that, “he has not done good thing to her and that he will not survive any longer.” In the background of this version, his statement that on 3rd September 1998, when he was present in his house, appellant Pritinder Singh came in a car and took his brother Ravinder Singh along with Manjit Kaur on the pretext of going to Bhagta to purchase shoes appears to be improbable. It is his further version that appellant Manjit Kaur also took her gun with her.
15. He stated that since they did not return, it raised a suspicion in his mind. He, therefore, along with Gurdeep Singh, went in search of the deceased Ravinder Singh. They went to the Dera at village Maluka where the Mahant of the Dera told them that Manjit Kaur and Pritinder Singh had come there at around 09.30 PM. Thereafter, he stated that the Mahant told them that the appellants and the deceased had left the Dera saying that they had to go to the house of Surjit Singh. Then the complainant and Gurdeep Singh started for the house of Surjit Singh and, when they reached the bridge of the minor canal at about 08.30 AM, they saw the dead body of his brother on the pavement of the minor canal. He further stated that the body of his brother bore two gun- shots. The car was also standing there. The gun was lying in the car along with a belt containing 7 cartridges. Thereafter, when he and Gurdeep Singh were going to the Police Station to lodge the report, they found a police party led by SI Amritpal Singh (PW-11) near the bus stand of V. Guruka Kotha, to whom he narrated the entire incident to, then and there. As already stated hereinabove, the relations between the appellant Manjit Kaur and this witness are strained. As such, the testimony of this witness, being an interested witness, will have to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
16. It appears to be improbable that, when appellant Manjit Kaur had herself threatened the deceased that he would no longer be alive, a real brother would permit the deceased to accompany her and another accused and, that too, when the accused was carrying a gun with her. We find that the evidence of this witness will have to be taken with a pinch of salt. PRITINDER SINGH @ LOVELY v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [B. R. GAVAI, J.]
17. Another witness supposedly giving credence to the last seen theory is Jagtar Singh (PW-9), son of Jagrup Singh. According to this witness, on 3rd September 1998, the accused along with deceased Ravinder Singh had come to the Dera when he had gone to visit there. He stated that when Ravinder Singh went to urinate, Manjit Kaur exhorted co-accused Pritinder Singh by saying that Ravinder Singh was alone and he should be done away with. PW-9 stated that, thereafter, the accused took meals in the Lungar there and went out.
18. The cross-examination of PW-9 shows that, though the incident occurred on 3rd September 1998, his statement was recorded on 10th September 1998. His evidence is full of contradictions and omissions. The admission in the cross-examination itself speaks volumes of his high credentials. He has admitted that he, along with other accused, had been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, but had, however, been acquitted by the High Court. He has further admitted that he had remained in jail for about 4 years in the murder case of one Gursewak Singh.
19. Though PW-9 has stated that on 3rd September 1998, accused Manjit Kaur had exhorted co-accused Pritinder Singh that Ravinder Singh was alone and he should be done away with, when the death of the deceased had occurred on the very next day, he did not find it necessary to inform anyone about it, including the police, till he was summoned to the Police Station on 10th September 1998.
20. It is to be noted that though the dead body of the deceased was found on 4th September 1998, the statement of Mal Singh (PW-2) to whom the alleged extra-judicial confession was made, was recorded on 9th September 1998. SI Amritpal Singh (PW-11) has admitted in his examination that Mal Singh (PW-2) was known to him. He has further stated that he did not know in how many cases of his Police Station Mal Singh was cited as witness. It is further to be noted that the statement of Jagtar Singh (PW-9), as already stated hereinabove, was recorded on 10th September 1998.
21. Amritpal Singh (PW-11) has also admitted in his evidence that though the father of Ravinder Singh was alive in those days, he did not record his statement by visiting his village. PW-11 further admitted that he also did not visit the house of the deceased Ravinder Singh to collect any evidence of motive or him leaving his house before the occurrence.
22. We find that the conviction on the basis of such evidence cannot be sustained. Apart from that, it is to be noted that even according to PW-11, the gun which was recovered from the car had two empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11). Furthermore, the evidence of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Goel (PW-5), who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, would show that there was no external exit wound, and wad and pellets were preserved and sealed. It is to be noted that apart from not collecting any evidence as to whether the said gun belonged to the appellant Manjit Kaur, even the Ballistic Expert has not been examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11).
23. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab3: “21. ………It hardly needs to be emphasised that in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent.”
24. No doubt that this case has been recently distinguished by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh4, relying on the earlier judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab5 and State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh6.
25. However, it is to be noted that the case of Jugraj Singh (supra) was a case of direct evidence, where there was evidence of two eye-witnesses. The present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would, in our opinion, be a glaring defect in the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond 3 (1995) 3 SCC 367 4 (2022) 12 SCC 677 5 [1963] 3 SCR 585 6 (2002) 3 SCC 234 PRITINDER SINGH @ LOVELY v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB [B. R. GAVAI, J.] reasonable doubt and, as such, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.
26. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 4th February 2010 and the judgment of the Trial Court dated 10th July 2001 are quashed and set aside.
27. The bail bonds of the appellants shall stand discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed. Divya Pandey Appeals allowed. (Assisted by : Roopanshi Virang, LCRA)