DARSHAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB on 6 December 2019

[2019] 14 S.C.R. 742

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2019] 14 S.C.R.

A

DARSHAN SINGH

v.

STATE OF PUNJAB

(Criminal Appeal No. 1688 of 2009)

BDECEMBER 06, 2019

[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Murder – Conviction based onextra judicial confession – A dead body was found in a jute bagin the field of informant – Body was decomposed and wasCidentified on the basis of clothes as the face was disfigured –Deceased was mother of accused-AS – Accused-SK was wife andaccused-JS was son of accused-AS – Accused-DS was servant intheir house – Prosecution case was that deceased had inherited 5bigha of land of her deceased son – Accused were not happy withDthis inheritance – Out of this land, deceased had sold 1 bigha andgiven the remaining 4 bighas on lease to accused-AS @ Rs.4000per bigha – However accused-AS was not paying the lease amountto her – Panchayats were also convened over this dispute – PW-16 was witness of extra-judicial confession – Trial court acquittedaccused-AS but convicted the other three accused on the basis ofEevidence of PW-16 and investigating officer – High Court upheldconviction – On appeal, held: Appellants were not found in thevillage soon after the occurrence as deposed by PW-13, the son-in-law of the deceased and the investigating officer – They alsodid not attend the cremation or the prayer ceremony which wasFheld after one week – The conduct of the accused of not beingavailable in the village was a strong circumstance – As perpostmortem report, the Dupatta around the neck of the deceasedhad two turns which is unusual for a woman, more so, for a womanof the age of deceased – The argument that no ligature mark wasfound on the deceased is of no relevance as the body was infectedGwith maggots and the ligature mark on the soft tissue would nothave survived – Furthermore, the bottle of acid was recovered onthe basis of disclosure made by accused-SK – The photographsof body showed disfigurement of face which was caused bypouring of acid with intention to avoid identification – Accused-HDS was convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession made before PW-16 that he had given a chair blow on the flank of thedeceased – The postmortem report showed fracture of Hyoid bone,an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture of ribs –Further, accused-DS had also disclosed that he had kept concealeda folding iron chair in house of accused-AS, the said chair wasrecovered – Prosecution proved the chain of circumstances to holdthe appellants guilty of the offences charged.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The deceased inherited share of land of her sonwho had passed away in 2003. Out of the 5 Bighas of land soinherited, she sold 1 Bigha for Rs.1,02,000/- whereas she leasedthe remaining 4 Bighas to her other son, ‘AS’ (accused). Thelease money was not being paid to her and this fact was statedby Sarpanch (PW-11) and also by PW-13, the son-in-law of thedeceased. The lease money was the only source of survival ofthe old woman who was living in a separate room and not withher son, ‘AS’. Sarpanch (PW-11) also deposed that only a sumof Rs.1,000/- was paid with a promise to pay another sum ofRs.1,000/- later. [Para 20] [752-H; 753-A-B]

2. The appellants were not found in the village soon afterthe occurrence as deposed by PW-13, the son-in-law of thedeceased and investigating officer (PW-15). They also did notattend the cremation or the prayer ceremony which was held afterone week. The conduct of the appellants of not being availablein the village is a strong circumstance of their conduct postdeath. [Para 22] [753-C-D]

3. The postmortem report indicated fracture of Hyoidbone. As per postmortem report, the Dupatta around the neckof the deceased had two turns which is unusual for a woman,more so, for a woman of the age of deceased. The argument thatno ligature mark was found on the deceased is of no relevanceas the body had been infected with maggots. Therefore, theligature mark on the soft tissue would not have survived.Furthermore, the bottle of acid was recovered on the basis ofdisclosure made by accused ‘SK’. The photographs that weretaken showed disfigurement of the face of the deceased. Suchdisfigurement was caused by pouring of acid with intention toavoid identification of the dead body. Although the witness (PW- AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A14) of last seen could not identify the appellants, but the factremains that he identified that a jute bag was thrown by a manand a woman who came on a TVS Motorcycle. Therefore, eventhough the witness could not identify the appellants in court asthe persons who had thrown the jute bag, the fact that the jutebag was thrown by a man and a woman on a TVS motorcycle isBrelevant in chain of events in support of the prosecution case.[Paras 23-25] [753-D-H]

4. ‘DS’ (accused) who was servant in the house of ‘AS’ wasconvicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession made beforePW-16. In the extra-judicial confession, he had deposed thatChe gave a Kursi (Chair) blow on the flank of the deceased. Thepostmortem report showed fracture of Hyoid bone, an irregularwound over the left breast and fracture of the 6[th] and 7[th] rib.Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made by ‘DS’ was alsosupported by medical evidence. Further, ‘DS’ had also disclosedDthat he had kept concealed a folding iron chair in house of ‘AS’,the said chair was recovered. The prosecution has proved thechain of circumstances to hold the appellants guilty of theoffences charged. [Para 26] [754-B-C]

Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCCE341 : [2007] 7 SCR 983 ; S. Arul Raja v. State of TamilNadu (2010) 8 SCC 233 : [2010] 9 SCR 356 ; SharadBirdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 ; Devi Lal v. State ofRajasthan 2019 SCC OnLine 39 ; Ram Lal v. Stateof Himachal Pradesh 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1730 -Freferred to.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2009 of the HighCourt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.H612-DB of 2007

With

Criminal Appeal No. 1690 of 2009.

D. P. Singh, Ms. Sonam Gupta, Ms. Ishita Jain, Sanjay Jain, Advs.for the Appellant.

Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Mandakini Singh, Ms. Ashima Mandla,Ms. Anupriya, Advs. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The judgment and order dated 19[th] February, 2009 passed bythe Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in an appealfiled by the three appellants is subject matter of challenge in the presentappeals. It is admitted at Bar that the appellant Swaran Kaur died duringpendency of the present appeals after she was released on bail by thisCourt on 4[th] October 2010.

2. An FIR was lodged by Jarnail Singh (PW-7) on 28[th] March,2005 at 12:35 pm. He was the member of Nagar Palika, Morinda andhad taken 7 Bigha of land on lease from Pritpal Singh, Mohan Singhsons of Khushal Singh on which he had sown wheat crop. He had alsotaken 7 Bigha of land on lease from Faqir Chand where again he hadsown wheat crop. He stated that the wheat in the land of Faqir Chandis of small size but the wheat in the land of Pritpal Singh was 2½ feetin height. He further stated that at about 10:30 am in the morning onthat day, he along with Mohinder Singh Lamberdar (Village Headman)and Hari Pal had gone to his field but noticed a foul smell emanatingfrom the land of Pritpal Singh near dump of wheat husk. He noticed ajute bag with maggots around it and suspected it to be a dead body ofa man or a woman. The land was near the bye-pass that was frequentedby people, however, it was lying closed because of rains. He left HariPal and Mohinder Singh Lamberdar at the spot and went to report thematter to the Police. Such statement was recorded by Balwant Singh,SHO who later appeared as PW-15. The investigations were initiated,dog squad and finger print experts were called at the spot. Case wasregistered against unknown persons. Copy of FIR was sent to theconcerned Magistrate.

3. On examination of the body in the inquest proceedings(Ex.PL), one telephone diary, a plastic bag, a jute bag and ladies wearing A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acloth were found. The body was found to be decomposed and couldnot be identified. A Dupatta was found around the neck. Thepostmortem was conducted on 30[th] March, 2005. The dead body wasidentified by Ujjagar Singh and Kuldeep Singh (PW-13).

4. Dr. Harbhajan Singh (PW-6) along with Dr. Navtejpal SinghBand Dr. Gulshan conducted the postmortem and gave their report(Ex.PG). The Dupatta was found wrapped around the neck with twoturns. No ligature mark was found present but skin over the Hyoid bonetaken for Histopathological examination. The underlying Hyoid bone wasfound fractured. The probable time of death was 10 days between deathand postmortem examination. The chemical examination report (Ex.PH)Cstated that Aluminum Phosphide Insecticide was detected in the samplescontaining parts of small and large intestine of the deceased. Phosphine,a constituent of Aluminum Phosphide, was detected in decomposedpieces of liver, spleen and kidney. Dr. Harbhajan Singh on the requestof the police opined that the cause of death is poisoning due to AluminumDPhosphide Insecticide, haemorrhage and haemo-thorax due to injury inthe left chest as described in the postmortem report.

5. After completion of the investigations including recording ofthe statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973[1], accused Avtar Singh, Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaurand Darshan Singh were made to stand trial. The deceased, Surjit Kaur,Ewas mother of accused Avtar Singh. Swaran Kaur is wife and JagmohanSingh is son of Avtar Singh. The accused Darshan Singh was a servantat Avtar Singh’s house.

6. The prosecution story is that Surjit Kaur (deceased) hadinherited 5 Bigha of land of Gurmit Singh (other son of deceased) whoFdied issueless and accused Avtar Singh, Jagmohan Singh and SwaranKaur were not happy with this inheritance. Out of this land, she sold 1bigha and gave the remaining 4 bighas on theka (lease) to accusedAvtar Singh at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per bigha. However, Avtar Singhhad not been paying the lease amount to her. Panchayats had also beenconvened over this dispute, where the four accused threatened theGdeceased.

7. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated23[rd] May, 2007/26[th] May, 2007 acquitted Avatar Singh but convictedJagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh.

H1 for short, ‘Code’

8. The prosecution relied upon PW-7 Jarnail Singh, on whosestatement the prosecution process was initiated. He deposed that theinvestigating officer had recovered one small diary from the inner pocketof undershirt of the deceased which had some telephone numbers andwas taken in possession vide memo Ex.PM. PW-8 Jagtar Singh, a milkman, deposed that he kept some acid with him for checking the fat ofmilk. He further stated that accused Swaran Kaur had come to him toget some acid to clean the rust on a cooking vessel and a toilet seat.She took ½ a bottle of acid from him. PW-10, Sohan Singh Patwari,had produced the record of the land of Gurmit Singh inherited by thedeceased. He produced mutation Ex-PR and Jamabandi Ex.PS. PW-11 is Harpal Singh, the Sarpanch of Village Sahauran. He deposed thatthe deceased came to him on 15[th] March, 2005 with a grievance thatAvtar Singh had not been paying lease money to her and he shouldfacilitate the payment. He requested Avtar Singh and Swaran Kaur togive the lease money to Surjit Kaur and they promised to give the leasemoney of Rs.2000/- by 20[th] March, 2005. He later got to know thatSurjit Kaur had died.

9. The material witness is Kuldeep Singh (PW-13), son-in-lawof the deceased, married to Gurnam Kaur, daughter of Amar Singhabout 36 years back. He stated that his mother-in-law Surjit Kaur hasbeen residing in a room (Chaubara). Out of 5 bighas of land, she hadsold 1 Bigha of land for Rs.1,02,000/-. Out of sale consideration,Rs.95,000/- was deposited by her in the Post Office. The remaining 4Bigha of land was given on lease to Avtar Singh at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per Bigha. Since, Avtar Singh was not paying lease money, there weredifferences between mother and son. He deposed that in the month ofMarch, 2005, Swaran Kaur, daughter-in-law of the deceased informedhim that Surjit Kaur had left after taking Rs.1,000/- from them towardslease money. It was on 29[th] March, 2005, he received a telephone calland also read in the newspaper that a dead body was found. Heidentified the dead body of his mother-in-law which was kept in themortuary. He alleged that she has been murdered by Avtar Singh, hiswife Swaran Kaur, his son Jagmohan Singh and one Darshan Singh.

10. Sukhdev Singh (PW-14) has been examined as a person oflast seen. He deposed that on 22[nd] March, 2005 at about 5:30 am, oneman and one woman came on TVS Motor Cycle and they werecarrying a gunny bag. He did not identify the accused in Court. He AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aread in the newspaper on 28[th] March, 2005 that a dead body was lyingon by-pass road.

11. The investigating officer Balwant Singh was examined asPW-15. He deposed that on 29[th] March, 2005, Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and Ujjagar Singh, son-in-laws of the deceased identified the deadBbody from clothes as the face was disfigured by pouring acid. KuldeepSingh and Ujjagar Singh had named the accused as suspects. Thereafter,the Investigating Officer conducted the raids for arresting the accused.He stated that the accused could not be traced in village Sahauran andother places. Thereafter, on 30[th] March, 2005, Bhupinder Singh (PW-C16) brought the accused Darshan Singh, Jagmohan Singh and SwaranKaur and got their statements recorded. He arrested the accused.Further, accused Swaran Kaur made a disclosure in police custody thatshe had kept concealed half empty bottle of acid in her house behind aphoto on a shelf and could get the same recovered. The said acid bottlewas recovered. On 31[st] March, 2005, he arrested accused Avtar SinghDin a raid conducted in Village Sahauran. Further, on 1[st] April, 2005,accused Jagmohan Singh gave a disclosure statement that he has keptconcealed his TVS Motor Cycle in a room and he could get it recovered.Thereafter, accused Darshan Singh disclosed that he had kept a foldingiron chair concealed in the house of Avtar Singh and he could get itErecovered. Both the TVS Motor Cycle and folding iron chair wererecovered from the disclosed places and were taken into possession.

12. The prosecution also examined Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) asthe witness of extra-judicial confession. He stated that he was presentin his house on 30[th] March, 2005. At about 10 am, accused SwaranFKaur, Jagmohan Singh and Darshan Singh present in the court cameto his house. Swaran Kaur told him that they have committed a bigblunder and that she had put a Dupatta on the neck of her mother-in-law Surjit Kaur and was strangulated. Darshan Singh gave a Kursi(chair) blow on the flank of Surjit Kaur when Jagmohan Singh caughthold of Surjit Kaur by her arms and, as a result thereof, Surjit KaurGdied. Swaran Kaur also told him that she poured acid on deceasedface. The dead body was kept in a gunny bag and put in a cupboard.Swaran Kaur further stated that the dead body was taken on a motorcycle for being thrown in the canal along with Jagmohan Singh.However, when they reached the bridge there was “Kacha Rasta”H(unmetalled path) and because of the water, the motor cycle could not pass through and they threw the gunny bag in the fields of wheat.Swaran Kaur also said that police were looking for them and askedhim to produce them before the police as he was acquainted with thepolice. Accused Jagmohan Singh also confessed that a big mistake hadbeen committed by them and they had killed Surjit Kaur. Darshan Singhalso confessed that he along with Swaran Kaur and Jagmohan Singhhave committed the murder of Surjit Kaur and recounted the same story.They also disclosed the motive of the murder being that Surjit Kaurwas asking for lease money of her land. Further, Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) stated that he produced the accused before the police on 30[th] March,2005. He also stated that prior to the visit of the accused persons tohis house on 30[th] March, 2005, he had no idea about the death ofdeceased Surjit Kaur. However, he stated that he does not rememberwhether he has mentioned the confessions in his statement recordedunder Section 161 of the Code before the police.

13. The learned trial court relied upon the statement of BhupinderSingh (PW-16) and that of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) to convict theaccused Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh. Learnedtrial court found that the testimony of Sukhdev Singh (PW-14) cannotbe used to prove the culpability as he could not establish the identity ofthose persons in the court. The learned trial court found that there isno challenge to the testimony of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) that deceasedSwaran Kaur had been living alone in a room which shows that shewas not living with her son Avtar Singh and his family in the old ageindicating that relations of the deceased with her son and daughter-in-law were not cordial. Statement of Harpal Singh (PW-11) Sarpanchwas referred to come to the conclusion that Surjit Kaur approachedhim complaining non-payment of lease money by her son Avtar Singh.He came to know about death of Surjit Kaur from the newspaperreports.

14. The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellantsrelying upon the statements of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and BhupinderSingh (PW-16) and the motive proved by Harpal Singh (PW-11).

15. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellantssubmitted that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of eventsso as to lead only one conclusion that the appellants and the appellantsalone have committed the crime. The evidence of last seen has notbeen believed by the trial court. In the absence of evidence of last seen, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe other evidence is of extra judicial confession. It is argued that extrajudicial confession is a weak evidence and can be made basis ofconviction if the person before whom confession is made appear to beunbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused. Referencewas made to the judgment reported as Ajay Singh v. State ofMaharashtra[2] and S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu[3].B

16. It is also argued that no motive can be attributed to theaccused as the deceased was last seen by Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) on20[th] March, 2005 and as per medical evidence, the probable time ofdeath is 20[th] March 2005 or so. It is thus argued that the witness wasthe only person who had met the deceased immediately prior to herCdeath and it is he who has to explain the death of the deceased. Thedeceased was staying in Village Behrampur, Village of Kuldeep Singh(PW-13). Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that deceased wasstaying in Village Sahauran, the findings recorded by the courts beloware not sustainable. It is also argued that as per postmortem reportD(Ex. PJ), cause of death is poisoning due to Aluminium Phosphideinsecticide, haemorrhage and haemo-thorax, but there is no evidenceas to how the poison was administered nor there was any recovery ofpoison. It is contended that if the death was due to strangulation, poisonin the body negates the prosecution story. It is also argued that a fractureof Hyoid bone does not necessarily mean strangulation. He placedEreliance upon Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra[4]and Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan[5]as to how the circumstantialevidence can be made basis for conviction and that none of thecircumstances are satisfied by the prosecution.

17. On the other hand, Ms. Gogia, learned counsel for the StateFargued that though the evidence of last seen has not been acceptedbut the fact remains that the statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW-14) isrelevant to the extent that he had seen one man and a woman on TVSMotorcycle though he could not identify the person who were ridingon such motorcycle. Still further, Harpal Singh (PW-11), the Sarpanchhad deposed in respect of motive of the offence as the deceased hadGinherited the property of Gurmit Singh, her other son who died issueless.It is the share of the property of Gurmit Singh which became the point 2 (2007) 12 SCC 3413 (2010) 8 SCC 2334 (1984) 4 SCC 116H5 2019 SCC OnLine 39

DARSHAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

of conflict inasmuch as the said land was given on lease by thedeceased to her other son Avtar Singh. Surjit Kaur had even approachedSarpanch for non-payment of lease money by the accused. Learnedcounsel for the State also refers to the statement of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13), son-in-law of the deceased to the effect that she was livingseparately and not with her son and daughter-in-law. He deposed aboutthe inheritance of land of Gurmit Singh and lease of land to Avtar Singhat the rate of Rs.4,000/- per Bigha. In cross-examination, he stated thatGurmit Singh died in the year 2003. He also stated that deceased wasfirst married to Bant Singh and her second marriage was with AmarSingh. She had a girl child from her first marriage. Ujjagar Singh is thehusband of that girl. The statement of Ujjagar Singh was also recordedin the Police Station identifying dead body of the deceased. Further,Kuldeep Singh states that on 29[th] March, 2005, he received a telephonecall and read in the newspaper that a dead body has been found givingdescription of the body and the clothes. He identified the dead body asthat of his mother-in-law. In cross-examination, he deposed that on 20[th]March, 2005, Surjit Kaur had not come to his house (in VillageBehrampur Zimidara) but he met her in Panchayat, Village Sahauran.He had not gone to visit in-laws house on 20[th] March, 2005. He inquiredfrom several relatives about the availability of Surjit Kaur. He deposedthat none of the accused were present at the time of cremation in theVillage Sahauran and none of Avtar Singh’s children were present atthe time of cremation. Further, a prayer meeting was held after sevendays of cremation on a Sunday, here one son of Avtar Singh along withhis younger daughter was present. He further stated that the deceasedhad visited his house 25 days prior to the occurrence for 2 days andthat he never telephoned her between the time she left his place till20[th] March, 2005, when he met her in the Panchayat at VillageSahauran. He denied the suggestions that deceased never went backto Village Sahauran.

18. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that BalwantSingh (PW-15), Investigating Officer deposed that he opened gunny bagwherein a dead body of woman was recovered. He got photograph ofthe dead body. On further search of the dead body on 29[th] March, 2005,he recovered a small telephone diary which was lying in the inner sidepocket of the undershirt of the dead body and was having telephonenumbers of some persons. Such diary was taken in possession viderecovery memo Ex- PM. He got published the photograph and news A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aof the recovery of unidentified dead body of a woman. He had alsotried to contact by calling the numbers noted in the diary. It was on29[th] March, 2005, Kuldeep Singh and Ujjagar Singh, son-in-laws of thedeceased came to the Mortuary and identified the dead body as thatof Surjit Kaur from the clothes as the face of dead body was dis-figuredby pouring acid. The photographs produced in evidence proves theBdisfigurement of the face and that the body could be identified only bythe clothes worn by the deceased. He deposed that he conducted raidsfor arresting the accused named by Kuldeep Singh and Ujjagar Singhbut could not found the accused in Village Sahauran. It was on 30[th]March, 2005, Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) produced the accused DarshanCSingh, Swaran Kaur and Jagmohan Singh before whom they have madeconfessional statements. It was stated that Avtar Singh has not sufferedany extra judicial confession before Bhupinder Singh (PW-16). On thebasis of disclosure statement of Swaran Kaur (Ex- PZ), empty halfbottle of acid was recovered from her house.

D19. Learned counsel for the State relies upon judgment of thisCourt reported as Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh[6] to contendthat the evidence of extra judicial confession need not in all cases becorroborated. It was held as under:

“14. It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarilyEconfession but the rule of prudence requires that whereverpossible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases becorroborated. In Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey, (1992)3 SCC 204, this court after referring to Piara Singh v. State ofFPunjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452 held that the law does not requirethat the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all casesbe corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that eachand every circumstance mentioned in the confession must beseparately and independently corroborated.”

G20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find nomerit in the present appeals.

21. Gurmit Singh, other son of deceased, passed away in 2003.The deceased inherited his share of land. Out of the 5 Bighas of landso inherited, she sold 1 Bigha for Rs.1,02,000/- whereas she leased theH6 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1730

remaining 4 Bighas to her other son, Avtar Singh. The lease moneywas not being paid to her and this fact has been stated by Sarpanch(Harpal Singh) (PW-11) and also by Kuldeep Singh (PW-13), the son-in-law of the deceased. The lease money was the only source of survivalof the old woman who was living in a separate room and not with herson, Avtar Singh. Harpal Singh (PW-11) has also deposed that only asum of Rs.1,000/- had been paid with a promise to pay another sum ofRs.1,000/- later. It, thus, transpires that the deceased was livingseparately and was not being paid the lease money which was necessaryfor her survival.

22. Further, the appellants were not found in the village soon afterthe occurrence as deposed by Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and investigatingofficer Balwant Singh (PW-15). They did not attend the cremation orthe prayer ceremony which was held after one week. The conduct ofthe appellants of not being available in the village is a strongcircumstance of their conduct post death.

23. There is no evidence led by the prosecution of administeringAluminum Phosphide but the postmortem report indicates fracture ofHyoid bone. As per postmortem report, the Dupatta around the neckof the deceased had two turns which is unusual for a woman, moreso, for a woman of the age of deceased. The argument that no ligaturemark was found on the deceased is of no relevance as the body hadbeen infected with maggots. Therefore, the ligature mark on the softtissue would not have survived.

24. Furthermore, the bottle of acid was recovered on the basisof disclosure made by accused Swaran Kaur. The photographs that weretaken showed disfigurement of the face of the deceased. Suchdisfigurement was caused by pouring of acid with intention to avoididentification of the dead body.

25. Although the witness (PW-14) of last seen could not identifythe appellants, but the fact remains that he identified that a jute bagwas thrown by a man and a woman who came on a TVS Motorcycle.Therefore, even though the witness could not identify the appellants incourt as the persons who had thrown the jute bag, the fact that thejute bag was thrown by a man and a woman on a TVS motorcycle isrelevant in chain of events in support of the prosecution case.

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

A26. Another argument raised by Mr. D.P. Singh which needsmention is that Darshan Singh is not a member of family and has nomotive in the commission of crime. It is observed that Darshan Singhwas convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession made beforeBhupinder Singh (PW-16). In the extra-judicial confession, DarshanSingh has deposed that he has given a Kursi (Chair) blow on the flankBof Surjit Kaur. The postmortem report (Ex. PJ) shows fracture of Hyoidbone, an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture of the 6[th]and 7[th] rib. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made by DarshanSingh is also supported by medical evidence. Further, Darshan Singhhad also disclosed that he had kept concealed a folding iron chair inChouse of Avtar Singh, the said chair was recovered. The prosecutionhas proved the chain of circumstances to hold the appellants guilty ofthe offences charged.

27. In view of the evidence led and the finding recorded by theCourts below, we do not find any merit in the present appeals.DAccordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The appellant No. 2 –Swaran Kaur is reported to have died during the pendency of the appeal.Darshan Singh and Jagmohan Singh shall now surrender to undergothe remaining sentence.

EDevika Gujral

Appeals dismissed.

F

G

H