9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302/201 IPC. 2. Circumstantial evidence: "last seen together." 3. Extra-judicial confession. 4. Recovery of dead body and its identification. 5. Disclosure statement leading to recovery of bones. Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 302/201 IPC: The appellant was convicted by the Special Court, Patiala, for the offenses under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), resulting in life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with an additional two years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for default on the fine and two years RI for the offense under Section 201 IPC. Both sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984. 2. Circumstantial Evidence: "Last Seen Together": The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, primarily the "last seen together" theory. PW-2, Tejinder Kaur, testified that the appellant took their daughters, Rozy and Pinky, on March 18, 1984, with the intention to kill them. Balwant Kaur, PW-4, allegedly heard the appellant declare his intent to kill the daughters at the bus stand. However, the court found inconsistencies and improbabilities in the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4. The court noted a significant delay in lodging the FIR and found the conduct of PW-2 unnatural and untrustworthy. The evidence of PW-5, Mohinder Singh, was also found unreliable due to contradictions and the strained relations within the family. Consequently, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the "last seen together" circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. Extra-Judicial Confession: The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to PW-3, Satya Walia. The court highlighted that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and require corroboration. The delay in lodging the complaint and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the confession led the court to rule out this evidence. The court noted that PW-3's statement was inconsistent and lacked credibility, further weakening the prosecution's case. 4. Recovery of Dead Body and Its Identification: The prosecution presented the recovery of Rozy's dead body from a canal and its identification by the appellant as a key piece of evidence. However, the court found that the identification process was flawed. PW-6 and PW-7, who testified about the recovery, did not know the appellant beforehand, and no identification parade was conducted. The court emphasized the importance of proper identification procedures, noting that the prosecution failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the lack of an identification parade. Consequently, the court ruled that the prosecution could not establish that the recovered dead body was that of Rozy or that the appellant had claimed it as his child's body. 5. Disclosure Statement Leading to Recovery of Bones: The prosecution also relied on a disclosure statement by the appellant, leading to the recovery of bones from the alleged place of cremation. The Trial Court had already ruled out the disclosure statement and the recovery of bones, and the Supreme Court agreed with this assessment. The court found that the bones recovered were not conclusively identified as Rozy's, and there were discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence regarding the age and type of bangles found. Additionally, key witnesses to the disclosure statement and recovery were not examined, further casting doubt on the prosecution's case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that none of the four circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the Trial Court had erred in convicting the appellant based on weak and uncorroborated circumstantial evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside. The appellant's bail bonds were discharged.
|
