Case Title: Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1052 OF 2009
Dated On: April 18, 2024
Quorum: Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The initial witness, Sharan Kaur, was the spouse of the deceased Balwinder Singh (dead). Her family used to live in the house behind the grocery and halwai stores that her husband had near the bus stop in Khudda.
On the intervening night of November 12–13, 1997, Sharan Kaur slept in a room on the ground floor with the rest of the family, while Balwinder Singh (dead) slept in the house’s chaubara, which lacked a shutter. At at 2:30 in the morning, Sharan Kaur is said to have heard a knock on the door of the room where she was resting.
She opened the door since she believed her husband to be the one who had knocked. She observed the accused appellant, Kirpal Singh, standing there brandishing a chura-style knife in the courtyard’s lighting. Sharan Kaur suffered an injury to her abdomen at the hands of the appellant. Kirpal Singh, the appellant, was being followed by another attacker who grabbed her arm.
Her boys Goldy and Sonu awoke when she set off an alarm and said, “killed killed.” None of the three individuals were able to identify the second attacker. By opening the main gate between the two stores, both attackers were able to escape. As Sharan Kaur went upstairs to check on her husband, she discovered him lying on the cot with terrible injuries and blood seeping from his head and mouth. On the ground below, blood accumulated. There was nothing he could say.
Balwinder Singh passed away en route to the Civil Hospital in Tanda with Sharan Kaur in tow. Sharan Kaur received first aid; after that, both she and the deceased Balwinder Singh’s body were returned.
The prosecution claims that jealousy between the appellant and his associate over the booming business being done at Balwinder Singh’s (deceased) halwai shop—which was doing much better than the halwai shop run by the accused appellant—was the driving force behind the incident.
Through a common judgement and order dated 28.02.2008, which is contested in this appeal filed at the accused appellant’s request, the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana went on to dismiss both the appeals, one by the State and the other by the accused-appellant, as well as the revision filed by the complainant.Krishna Singh
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT:
According to the prosecution, the reason for the incident was that the accused appellant and his associate were harbouring jealousy towards Balwinder Singh’s (deceased) booming halwai business, which was performing significantly better than the accused appellant’s halwai shop.
The accused appellant fiercely argued that the conclusions listed in the contested judgement are irrational and contradictory, and as such, they should be overturned.
He made the following relevant arguments in his request for the accused appellant to be exonerated:
Daljit Singh @ Goldy , the deceased’s son, and Sharan Kaur , the first informant and the deceased’s wife, provide wildly inconsistent, inconsistent, and unpersuasive testimony. Further, the prosecution witnesses have attempted throughout the proceedings to embellish the narrative provided in the FIR; as a result, their testimony ought to be disregarded.
They, further alleged that both the trial court and the high court concluded that the co-accused, Kulwinder Singh, was not guilty of the charges made against him and that the witnesses, Shan Kaur and Daljit Singh @ Goldy, were not entirely credible. As a result, Culwinder Singh was declared not guilty. Consequently, Kirpal Singh, the accused-appellant, likewise merits the same handling.
Closure reports were filed by the police in the relevant Court after the defence witnesses unequivocally declared that, following a comprehensive investigation, the accusations made by the first informant, Shawn Kaur, were confirmed to be untrue.
According to the testimony of Daljit Singh @ Goldy, the dead Balwinder Singh’s son, and the initial informant, Sharan Kaur, the case is accepted. However, the four servants who were seen having sex with the deceased Balwinder Singh in the house’s chaubara were not questioned or put on trial. Similarly, the prosecution did not question Gurmit Singh, the deceased’s other son and the first informant, it is a suitable instance that justifies or allows for the drawing of an adverse inference against the prosecution for the reasons that are best known to them.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The State’s skilled counsel fiercely and passionately refuted the arguments put out by the appellant’s counsel. He acknowledged that the prosecution’s version of events regarding accused Kulwinder Singh’s involvement did not sit well with the trial court or the High Court, but he maintained that this did not constitute a good enough excuse to throw out the prosecution’s entire case, including the accused appellant who was mentioned in the FIR and the testimony of the key prosecution witness.
He fiercely argued that minor inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ testimony provide reassurance that they are real witnesses and not made-up witnesses. His argument was that the Indian criminal justice system did not follow the idea of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,” and as a result, only when one of the two accused parties named by the prosecution.
He further argued that both the trial court and the high court had found the accused appellant guilty of the charges after separating the grain from the chaff and reappreciating the evidence. As a result, the court should be reluctant to intervene in these concurrent findings of facts made by the trial court and the high court. Lean legal counsel representing the State argued on these grounds that the appeal should be dismissed because it is without merit.
LEGAL PROVISION:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code- The appellant was convicted under this section, which deals with the offense of murder. It prescribes punishment for intentionally causing the death of another person.
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code- Whoever commits any act with such intent or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that if he caused death by that act, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term of up to ten years, as well as a fine; and if such act causes harm to any person, the offender shall be punished with either life imprisonment or the punishment mentioned above.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court held that using the ladder that the prosecution had erected on the house wall, they attempted to prove that the accused had used it to climb into the chaubara and struck the deceased Balwinder Singh with a spade, causing serious injuries. According to Sharan Kaur’s testimony (PW.5), the accused was jealous of her husband’s successful halwai business, which was causing her own business to struggle. This jealousy was the purpose behind the incident.
The court further observed that Sharan Kaur makes a similarly nebulous statement on this subject. Nothing in the accused’s deposition can persuade the court that the accused would go to the extreme of erecting a ladder against the wall of the home where the deceased Balwinder Singh used to live with his family and then climb up and murder him—that too in front of his family members—just because of this alleged jealousy.
It was also held that the identity of the second accused, Kulwinder Singh, is not listed as one of the attackers in either the FIR (Exhibit-PG/2) or the application (Exhibit-DA), which was signed by the first informant, Sharan Kaur, and sent to the Chief Minister of Punjab. There is no denying the intimate ties between the first informant and the deceased’s family and the acquitted accused Kulwinder Singh and appellant Kirpal Singh.
As per the court, given that the first informant stated during her chief interrogation that her son had brought a van to transport her and her husband to the Civil Hospital in Tanda, where the medical officers concluded that her husband had passed away and that she had undergone a medical examination, there is much reason to seriously doubt the veracity of her deposition. Nevertheless, they did not accept this assessment and brought the patient to Bhogpur, where the medical professionals once more confirmed that her spouse had passed away.
The court observed that the prosecution’s motive story was implausible so as to be taken at face value. After doing a comprehensive investigation, two investigating officers discovered that the original informant, Shawn Kaur, had made up the entire case. Considering that the first informant attempted to implicate Kulwinder Singh through many petitions filed while the investigation was still continuing and even in her testimony during the trial, her actions are not deserving of trust.
The court, by extending the benefit of the doubt, held the appellant is deserving of being found not guilty. As a consequence, the trial court’s and the high court’s rulings from July 26, 2003, and hereby annulled and set aside, as of February 28, 2008, accordingly. The accused is found not guilty of the allegations. During the course of this appeal, the appellant’s sentence was instructed by this Court to be suspended on August 12, 2011, and he is currently free on bail. The bail bonds are released, and he is not required to surrender.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.
