REPORTABLE

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 389    OF 2004

RANJIT SINGH ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O  R D E R

This  appeal  has  been  filed  by  Ranjit  Singh  

challenging his conviction and sentence under Section 302  

of the IPC for having committed the murder of his wife on  

Ist  September  1990  in  the  area  of  village  Sandhwan,  

District Faridkot.   

As per the prosecution story Gurtej Singh-PW.10 of  

village Sandhwan found the dead body of Gurmail Kaur lying

in the house of the appellant on the Ist  September 1990.  

None of the family members of the appellant were present in  

the house at that time but an electric wire was lying near  

the dead body.  Gurtej Singh-PW. thereafter informed PW.3-

Harjinder Singh-the brother of the deceased, who rushed to  

village Sandhwan accompanied by his son Mohan Singh  and  

Sarpanch Harbhajan Singh.  They found the dead body  lying  

in the house. The matter was reported by Harjinder Singh to  

the Police Station at 5.30 a.m. on the 2nd September, 1990.  

ASI-Sant Parkash (PW.14) thereafter reached the house of  

-2-

the appellant in village Sandhwan. He recorded the inquest

proceedings  and  sent  the  dead  body  for  its  post-mortem  

examination.  He also picked up an electric wire 15 feet in  

length  from  the  spot.   The  post-mortem  examination  

conducted on the 2nd September at 1.45 by Dr. K.K.Agarwal  

revealed ten injuries on the dead body. The Doctor opined  

that  the  death  had  been  caused  by  asphyxia  due  to  

strangulation.  It was also opined  that after the deceased  

had been done to death efforts had been made to electrocute  

her  as well.  During the course of the investigation it  

was found that Ranjit Singh – appellant and his sisters  

Manjit Kaur and Baljit Kaur and grandmother-Gurcharan Kaur  

were also involved in the murder.  Baljit Kaur and Manjit  

Kaur were accordingly arrested on the September 12, 1990  

whereas, as per the prosecution story, the appellant was  

produced before the Investigating officer on the same day  

by  PW.8  Geja  Singh  before  whom  he  had  made  an  extra

judicial confession.  A charge-sheet was also filed against  

Ranjit Singh, Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur whereas Gurcharan  

Kaur was shown in Column No.2 but was subsequently summoned  

and sent up for trial on the basis of an application made  

under  Section  319  of  the  Cr.P.C.   On  appearance  of  

Gurcharan Kaur charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC were  

framed against all the accused.

-3-  

The prosecution in support of its case relied inter  

alia on the evidence of Dr. K.K. Aggarwal (PW.1) who had

conducted the  post-mortem, PW.3-Harjinder Singh-the first  

informant, PW.4-Mohan Singh, and PW.8-Geja Singh and PW.9-

Arjan Singh to whom Ranjit Singh had made extra judicial  

confessions and PW.13-Tejvir Singh to whom Baljit Kaur and  

Manjit Kaur had made extra-judicial confessions.  After the  

close of the prosecution case the statements of the accused  

were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They denied  

all the allegations against them and stated that they had  

never sought any money from Gurnail Kaur's father for the  

purpose of sending Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur  Canada to  

join their mother who was living there.  They also pleaded  

alibis  in  defence   and  also  produced  evidence  to  that  

effect.   

The Trial Court recorded some positive findings in  

favour of the accused on a perusal of the evidence.  It  

observed that there appeared to be no motive for the murder

and  none  had  been  suggested  by  the  prosecution  and  the  

story that the accused were attempting  to extort money  

from the deceased and her father so that they could buy  

tickets for going abroad was not based on any evidence. The  

court  also  observed  that  but  for  the  extra-judicial  

confession allegedly made by the accused to PW's. 8,9 and  

13, there was no other evidence against the accused.   The  

-4-

Court then examined this evidence and held that as per the  

statement of PW.8 Geja Singh the accused had been arrested  

on  the  2nd September,  1990  whereas  the  I.O.  PW.14  had

categorically stated that they had been arrested on the 10th  

September, 1990 and in this view of the matter the sanctity  

of the extra judicial confession was suspect. It has also  

observed that PW.9 was closely related to the family of the  

deceased and was therefore improbable that the  accused  

would  make an extra judicial confession to him. The Trial  

Court  accordingly  acquitted  the  accused.  The  matter  was  

thereafter taken in appeal to the High Court by the State  

of Punjab. The High Court, has on a reconsideration of the  

evidence,  allowed  the  State  appeal  qua  Ranjit  Singh-the  

appellant and dismissed the appeal qua the other two i.e.  

Baljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur.  The High Court has opined  

that the appellant was the husband of the deceased and  as  

the  death  of  Gurmail  Kaur   was  homicidal  and  as  the  

appellant had made absolutely no effort to raise a hue and  

cry  despite  the  fact  that  his  wife  had  been  murdered,

clearly spelt out that he was guilty of the crime.  It was  

also observed that the extra judicial confession though of  

little significance but an  inference could be drawn that  

the appellant wanted his wife out of the way so that he  

could move to Canada to be with his mother who was settled  

there. The Court however observed that this was not a case  

-5-

of a murder for dowry  but was nevertheless a diabolical  

crime.  The State appeal was accordingly allowed and the  

appellant sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302  

of the IPC. This statutory appeal has been filed by Ranjit

Singh.  

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  

very carefully and had gone through the record. The Trial  

Court had gone into the evidence and observed that there  

was no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime.  

It is true that the incident happened in the matrimonial  

home and some presumption regarding the special knowledge  

etc. could be raised in such a situation.  But the basic  

onus on the prosecution is to prove its case and the onus  

does not change merely  because  the victim is the wife and  

the accused the husband and the incident happened in the  

matrimonial home. In this case it has been found that the  

extra-judicial confession has been made by the appellant to  

two  persons i.e. Geja Singh  and Arjun Singh. The Trial  

Court   had  given  very  good  reasons  for  discarding  this  

evidence by observing that the appellant along with his

sisters were in custody from the 2nd September, 1990 onwards  

and as such the prosecution story that he had been arrested  

on the 10th September, 1990 after he had made the extra  

judicial confession was unbelievable. The High Court has  

-6-

observed  however  that  the  extra  judicial  confession  was  

really irrelevant in the circumstances,  but at the same  

time, curiously, relied on those very confessions. We also  

find that some of the conclusions drawn by the High Court  

are merely conjectural and are not borne out by evidence.

An extra judicial confession  is an extremely weak kind of  

evidence  and  conviction  on  its  basis  alone   is  rarely  

recorded,  there  is  absolutely  no  other  evidence  in  the  

case.  We are of the opinion that the judgment of the High  

Court was a little stretched out and not possible on the  

facts of the case. The view taken by the Trial Court was  

clearly possible and should not have been interfered with  

by the High Court.   

We  accordingly  allow  the  appeal,  set  aside  the  

judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  direct  the  appellant's  

acquittal.  His bail bonds are discharged.

                   .................J.         (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)  

                                  ....................J.

                                 (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, March 29, 2011.