REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1688 OF 2009

DARSHAN SINGH .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2009

J U D G M E N T

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The judgment and order dated 19th February, 2009 passed by the

Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in an appeal

filed by the three appellants is subject matter of challenge in the

present appeals.  It is admitted at Bar that the appellant Swaran

Kaur died during pendency of the present appeals after she was

released on bail by this Court on 4th October 2010.

2. An FIR was lodged by Jarnail Singh (PW-7) on 28th March, 2005 at

12:35 pm.  He was the member of Nagar Palika, Morinda and had

taken 7 Bigha of land on lease from Pritpal Singh, Mohan Singh

sons of Khushal Singh on which he had sown wheat crop.  He had

1

also taken 7 Bigha of land on lease from Faqir Chand where again

he had sown wheat crop. He stated that the wheat in the land of

Faqir Chand is of small  size but the wheat in the land of Pritpal

Singh was 2½ feet in height.  He further stated that at about 10:30

am in  the  morning  on  that  day,  he  along  with  Mohinder  Singh

Lamberdar (Village Headman) and Hari Pal had gone to his field but

noticed a foul smell emanating from the land of Pritpal Singh near

dump of wheat husk.  He noticed a jute bag with maggots around it

and suspected it to be a dead body of a man or a woman.  The land

was near the bye-pass that was frequented by people, however, it

was lying closed because of rains. He left Hari Pal and Mohinder

Singh Lamberdar at the spot and went to report the matter 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 was

registered against unknown persons. Copy of FIR was sent to the

concerned 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 cloth

were found.  The body was found to be decomposed and could not

be  identified.   A  Dupatta  was  found  around  the  neck.   The

postmortem was conducted on 30th March, 2005.  The dead body

was identified by Ujjagar Singh and Kuldeep Singh (PW-13).  

4. Dr. Harbhajan Singh (PW-6) along with Dr. Navtejpal Singh and Dr.

2

Gulshan conducted the postmortem and gave their report (Ex.PG).

The  Dupatta  was found wrapped around the neck with two turns.

No ligature mark was found present but skin over the Hyoid bone

taken  for  Histopathological  examination.  The  underlying  Hyoid

bone was found fractured. The probable time of death was 10 days

between  death  and  postmortem  examination.  The  chemical

examination  report  (Ex.PH)  stated  that  Aluminum  Phosphide

Insecticide was detected in the samples containing parts of small

and large intestine of the deceased.  Phosphine, a constituent of

Aluminum Phosphide, was detected in decomposed pieces of liver,

spleen  and  kidney.   Dr.  Harbhajan  Singh  on  the  request  of  the

police opined that the cause of death is poisoning due to Aluminum

Phosphide  Insecticide,  haemorrhage  and  haemo-thorax  due  to

injury in the left chest as described in the postmortem report.   

5. After  completion of  the investigations  including recording of  the

statement  of  the  witnesses  under  Section  161  of  the  Code  of

Criminal Procedure, 19731, accused Avtar Singh, Jagmohan Singh,

Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh were made to stand trial.   The

deceased, Surjit Kaur, was mother of accused Avtar Singh.  Swaran

Kaur is wife and Jagmohan Singh is son of Avtar Singh. The accused

Darshan Singh was a servant at Avtar Singh’s house.  

6. The prosecution story is that Surjit Kaur (deceased) had inherited 5

Bigha of land of Gurmit Singh (other son of deceased) who died

issueless and accused Avtar Singh, Jagmohan Singh and Swaran

1  for short, ‘Code’

3

Kaur were not happy with this inheritance.  Out of this land, she

sold 1 bigha and gave the remaining 4 bighas on theka (lease) to

accused Avtar Singh at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per bigha. However,

Avtar  Singh  had  not  been  paying  the  lease  amount  to  her.

Panchayats had also been convened over this dispute, where the

four accused threatened the deceased.  

7. The learned Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 23rd

May,  2007/26th May,  2007 acquitted  Avatar  Singh but  convicted

Jagmohan Singh, Swaran Kaur and Darshan Singh.     

8. The  prosecution  relied  upon  PW-7  Jarnail  Singh,  on  whose

statement the prosecution process was initiated. He deposed that

the investigating officer had recovered one small  diary from the

inner  pocket  of  undershirt  of  the  deceased  which  had  some

telephone numbers and was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PM.

PW-8 Jagtar Singh, a milk man, deposed that he kept some acid

with  him  for  checking  the  fat  of  milk.   He  further  stated  that

accused Swaran Kaur had come to him to get 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 the deceased.  He

produced mutation    Ex-PR and Jamabandi Ex.PS.  PW-11 is Harpal

Singh,  the  Sarpanch  of  Village  Sahauran.  He  deposed  that  the

deceased came to him on 15th March, 2005 with a grievance that

Avtar Singh had not been paying lease money to her and he should

4

facilitate the payment.  He requested Avtar Singh and Swaran Kaur

to give the lease money to Surjit Kaur and they promised to give

the lease money of Rs.2000/- by 20th March, 2005.  He later got to

know that Surjit Kaur had died.   

9. The material witness is Kuldeep Singh (PW-13), son-in-law of the

deceased, married to Gurnam Kaur, daughter of Amar Singh about

36 years back.  He stated that his mother-in-law Surjit  Kaur has

been residing in a room (Chaubara).  Out of 5 bighas of land, she

had  sold  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 4 Bigha 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 were differences between mother and son.  He

deposed that in the month of March, 2005, Swaran Kaur, daughter-

in-law of the deceased informed him that Surjit Kaur had left after

taking Rs.1,000/- from them towards lease money.  It was on 29th

March,  2005,  he received a  telephone call  and also read in  the

newspaper that a dead body was found.  He identified the dead

body  of  his  mother-in-law which  was  kept  in  the  mortuary.   He

alleged  that  she  has  been  murdered  by  Avtar  Singh,  his  wife

Swaran Kaur, his son Jagmohan Singh and one Darshan Singh.

10. Sukhdev Singh  (PW-14)  has  been examined  as  a  person  of  last

seen.  He deposed that on 22nd March, 2005 at about 5:30 am, one

man and one woman came on TVS Motor  Cycle  and they were

5

carrying a gunny bag.  He did not identify the accused in Court.  He

read in the newspaper on 28th March, 2005 that a dead body was

lying on by-pass road.

11. The investigating officer Balwant Singh was examined as PW-15.

He deposed that  on 29th March, 2005, Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and

Ujjagar Singh, son-in-laws of the deceased identified the dead body

from clothes as the face was disfigured by pouring acid.  Kuldeep

Singh  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  and other  places.  Thereafter,  on  30th

March,  2005,  Bhupinder  Singh  (PW-16)  brought  the  accused

Darshan Singh,  Jagmohan Singh and Swaran Kaur  and got  their

statements  recorded.  He arrested the accused.  Further,  accused

Swaran Kaur made a disclosure in police custody that she had kept

concealed half empty bottle of acid in her house behind a photo on

a shelf and could get the same recovered.  The said acid bottle was

recovered. On 31st March, 2005, he arrested accused Avtar Singh in

a raid conducted in Village Sahauran. Further, on 1st April,  2005,

accused Jagmohan Singh gave a disclosure statement that he has

kept concealed his TVS Motor Cycle in a room and he could get it

recovered.  Thereafter,  accused  Darshan Singh  disclosed  that  he

had kept a folding iron chair concealed in the house of Avtar Singh

and he could get it recovered. Both the TVS Motor Cycle and folding

iron chair were recovered from the disclosed places and were taken

6

into possession.

12. The prosecution  also  examined  Bhupinder  Singh (PW-16)  as  the

witness of extra-judicial confession.  He stated that he was present

in his house on 30th March, 2005.  At about 10 am, accused Swaran

Kaur,  Jagmohan  Singh  and  Darshan  Singh  present  in  the  court

came to his house. Swaran Kaur told him that they have committed

a big blunder 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  caught  hold  of  Surjit  Kaur  by  her  arms  and,  as  a  result

thereof,  Surjit  Kaur  died.   Swaran  Kaur  also  told  him  that  she

poured acid on deceased face.  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 motor  cycle  for  being thrown in  the

canal along with Jagmohan Singh. However, when they reached the

bridge there was “Kacha Rasta” (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  asked  him  to  produce  them

before the police as he was acquainted with the police. Accused

Jagmohan  Singh  also  confessed  that  a  big  mistake  had  been

committed by them and they had killed Surjit Kaur.   Darshan Singh

also  confessed  that  he  along  with  Swaran  Kaur  and  Jagmohan

Singh have committed the murder of Surjit Kaur and recounted the

same story.  They also disclosed the motive of the murder being

7

that Surjit Kaur was asking for lease money of her land. Further,

Bhupinder  Singh  (PW-16)  stated  that  he  produced  the  accused

before the police on 30th March, 2005.  He also stated that prior to

the visit of the accused persons to his house on 30 th March, 2005,

he had no idea about the death of deceased Surjit Kaur. However,

he stated that he does not remember whether he has mentioned

the confessions in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the

Code before the police.  

13. The  learned  trial  court  relied  upon  the  statement  of  Bhupinder

Singh (PW-16) and that of Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) to convict  the

accused  Jagmohan  Singh,  Swaran  Kaur  and  Darshan  Singh.

Learned trial court found that the testimony of Sukhdev Singh (PW-

14)  cannot  be  used  to  prove  the  culpability  as  he  could  not

establish the identity of those persons in the court.  The learned

trial  court  found  that  there  is  no  challenge  to  the  testimony of

Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) that deceased Swaran Kaur had been living

alone in a room which shows that she was not living with her son

Avtar Singh and his family in the old age indicating that relations of

the deceased with her son and daughter-in-law were not cordial.

Statement of Harpal Singh (PW-11) Sarpanch was referred to come

to the conclusion that Surjit Kaur approached him complaining non-

payment of lease money by her son Avtar Singh.  He came to know

about death of Surjit Kaur from the newspaper reports.

14. The  High  Court  dismissed  the  appeals  filed  by  the  appellants

8

relying  upon  the  statements  of  Kuldeep  Singh  (PW-13)  and

Bhupinder Singh (PW-16) and the motive proved by Harpal Singh

(PW-11).   

15. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted

that 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 evidence of last

seen has not been believed by the trial court.  In the absence of

evidence  of  last  seen,  the  other  evidence  is  of  extra  judicial

confession.  It  is  argued that 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.   Reference  was  made  to  the

judgment reported as Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra2 and

S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu3.

16. It is also argued that 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.  It is thus argued that the witness

was the only person who had met the deceased immediately prior

to  her  death  and it  is  he  who has  to  explain  the  death  of  the

deceased. The deceased was staying in Village Behrampur, Village

of  Kuldeep  Singh  (PW-13).  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  any

2  (2007) 12 SCC 341 3  (2010) 8 SCC 233

9

evidence  that  deceased  was  staying  in  Village  Sahauran,  the

findings recorded by the courts below are not sustainable.  It is also

argued that 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.   It  is

contended that if the death was due to strangulation, poison in the

body  negates  the  prosecution  story.   It  is  also  argued  that  a

fracture of Hyoid bone does not necessarily mean strangulation. He

placed  reliance  upon  Sharad  Birdhichand  Sarda  v.  State  of

Maharashtra4 and  Devi Lal  v.  State of Rajasthan5 as to how

the circumstantial evidence can be made basis for conviction and

that none of the circumstances are satisfied by the prosecution.  

17. On the other hand, Ms. Gogia, learned counsel for the State argued

that though the evidence of last seen has not been accepted but

the fact remains that the statement of Sukhdev Singh (PW-14) is

relevant to the extent that he had seen one man and a woman on

TVS Motorcycle though he could not identify the person who were

riding on such motorcycle.  Still further, Harpal Singh (PW-11), the

Sarpanch had deposed in respect of motive of the offence as the

deceased had inherited 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 of conflict inasmuch as the said land was

given  on  lease  by  the  deceased  to  her  other  son  Avtar  Singh.

4  (1984) 4 SCC 116 5  2019 SCC OnLine 39

10

Surjit  Kaur  had  even  approached  Sarpanch  for  non-payment  of

lease money by the accused.  Learned counsel 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 living separately and not with

her son and daughter-in-law.  He deposed about the inheritance of

land of Gurmit Singh and lease of land to Avtar Singh at the rate of

Rs.4,000/- per Bigha.  In cross-examination, he stated that Gurmit

Singh died in the year 2003.  He also stated that deceased was first

married to Bant Singh and her second marriage was with Amar

Singh.  She had a girl child from her first marriage.  Ujjagar Singh is

the husband of that girl.  The statement of Ujjagar Singh was also

recorded  in  the  Police  Station  identifying  dead  body  of  the

deceased.  Further, Kuldeep Singh states that on 29th March, 2005,

he received a telephone call and read in the newspaper that a dead

body  has  been  found  giving  description  of  the  body  and  the

clothes.  He identified the dead body as that of his mother-in-law.

In cross-examination, he deposed that on 20th March, 2005, Surjit

Kaur had not come to his house (in Village Behrampur Zimidara)

but he met her in Panchayat, Village Sahauran.  He had not gone to

visit in-laws house on 20th March, 2005.  He inquired from several

relatives about the availability of Surjit Kaur.  He deposed that none

of the accused were present at the time of cremation in the Village

Sahauran and none of Avtar Singh’s children were present at the

time of cremation.  Further, a prayer meeting was held after seven

days of cremation on a Sunday, here one son of Avtar Singh along

11

with his younger daughter was present.  He further stated that the

deceased had visited his house 25 days prior to the occurrence for

2 days and that he never telephoned her between the time she left

his place till 20th March, 2005, when he met her in the Panchayat at

Village Sahauran.  He denied the suggestions that deceased never

went back to Village Sahauran.

18. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that Balwant Singh

(PW-15), Investigating Officer deposed that he opened gunny bag

wherein a dead body of woman was recovered.  He got photograph

of  the dead body.   On further  search of  the  dead body on 29th

March, 2005, he recovered a small telephone diary which was lying

in the inner side pocket of the undershirt of the dead body and was

having telephone numbers of some persons.  Such diary was taken

in possession vide recovery memo Ex- PM.  He got published the

photograph and news of the recovery of unidentified dead body of

a woman.   He had also tried to contact by calling the numbers

noted in the diary.  It was on 29th March, 2005, Kuldeep Singh and

Ujjagar Singh, son-in-laws of the deceased came to the Mortuary

and identified the dead body as that of Surjit Kaur from the clothes

as the face of  dead body was dis-figured by pouring acid.   The

photographs produced in evidence proves the disfigurement of the

face and that the body could be identified only by the clothes worn

by  the  deceased.    He  deposed  that  he  conducted  raids  for

arresting the accused named by Kuldeep Singh and Ujjagar Singh

but could not found the accused in Village Sahauran.  It was on 30th

12

March,  2005,  Bhupinder  Singh  (PW-16)  produced  the  accused

Darshan  Singh,  Swaran  Kaur  and  Jagmohan Singh  before  whom

they have made confessional statements.  It was stated that Avtar

Singh  has  not  suffered  any  extra  judicial  confession  before

Bhupinder Singh (PW-16).  On the basis of disclosure statement of

Swaran Kaur (Ex- PZ), empty half bottle of acid was recovered from

her house.   

19. Learned counsel for the State relies upon judgment of this Court

reported as Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh6 to contend

that the evidence of extra judicial confession need not in all cases

be corroborated.  It was held as under:

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

20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit 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 land so

inherited, she sold 1 Bigha for Rs.1,02,000/- whereas she leased

6  2018 SCC OnLine SC 1730  

13

the remaining 4 Bighas to her other son, Avtar Singh.  The lease

money was 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 survival of the old woman who was living in a separate

room and not with her son, Avtar Singh.  Harpal Singh (PW-11) has

also deposed that only a sum of Rs.1,000/- had been paid with a

promise to pay another sum of Rs.1,000/- later.  It, thus, transpires

that the deceased was living separately and was not being paid the

lease money which was necessary for her survival.

22. Further, the appellants were not found in the village soon after the

occurrence as deposed by Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and investigating

officer Balwant Singh (PW-15).  They did not attend the cremation

or  the  prayer  ceremony  which  was  held  after  one  week.   The

conduct of the appellants of not being available in the village is a

strong circumstance of their conduct post death.

23. There  is  no  evidence  led  by  the  prosecution  of  administering

Aluminum Phosphide but the postmortem report indicates fracture

of Hyoid bone.  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.  The argument that

no ligature mark was found on the deceased is of no relevance as

the body had been infected with maggots.  Therefore, the ligature

mark on the soft tissue would not have survived.   

14

24. Furthermore,  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.

Such disfigurement was caused by pouring of acid with intention to

avoid identification of the dead body.  

25. Although the witness (PW-14) of last seen could not identify the

appellants, but 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.

26. Another argument raised by Mr. D.P. Singh which needs mention is

that Darshan Singh is not a member of family and has no motive in

the commission of crime. It  is  observed that Darshan Singh was

convicted  on  the  basis  of  extra-judicial  confession  made  before

Bhupinder Singh (PW-16).  In the extra-judicial confession, Darshan

Singh has deposed that he has given a  Kursi (Chair) blow on the

flank of Surjit Kaur.  The postmortem report (Ex. PJ) shows fracture

of Hyoid bone, an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture

of the 6th and 7th rib.  Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made

by Darshan Singh is also supported by medical evidence. Further,

Darshan Singh had also disclosed that he had kept concealed a

15

folding  iron  chair  in  house  of  Avtar  Singh,  the  said  chair  was

recovered. The prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances

to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged.

27. In view of the evidence led and the finding recorded by the Courts

below, we do not find any merit in the present appeals.  Accord-

ingly, both the appeals are dismissed.  The sentence of the appel-

lants were suspended by this Court.  They shall now surrender to

undergo the remaining sentence.

.............................................J. (L. NAGESWARA RAO)

.............................................J. (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 06, 2019.

16