CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT China Kumar Pandit State of Punjab CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. China Kumar Pandit Sessions Judge, having committed offence under Section rigorous imprisonment for life and 2. The matter arises out of FIR No. Station Sadar, Ludhiana, under Sections Hardev Singh leading to lodging of FIR “I am an agriculturist Singh. We two daughter studying in Class I in St. Josephs School, Dugri Road, Dhandra there (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CRA Date of Decision: China Kumar Pandit Versus Punjab HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. A.S.Khinda, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel), for the appellant. Mr. Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. China Kumar Pandit assails judgment dated Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherein the trial Court while holding him having committed offence under Section imprisonment for life and imposed matter arises out of FIR No.200 dated Station Sadar, Ludhiana, under Sections 302, 364, 201 IPC Hardev Singh. The translated gist of Hardev Singh’s leading to lodging of FIR reads as under: I am an agriculturist and have two sons namely Bhagwant Singh and Harjit Singh. We all reside together in the same house. daughters and a son namely Gurjot Singh aged about 7 ½ years, who is studying in Class I in St. Josephs School, Dugri Road, Dhandra there is vacation in school and as such, Gurjot Singh FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) ate of Decision: 08.04.2025 … Appellant ... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI A.S.Khinda, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel), Sidharth Attri, AAG, Punjab. judgment dated 19.01.2004 passed by learned wherein the trial Court while holding him guilty of having committed offence under Section 302, sentenced him to undergo imposed a fine amounting to Rs.10,000/- 200 dated 11.06.2000 registered at Police 302, 364, 201 IPC at the instance o Hardev Singh’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A and have two sons namely Bhagwant Singh and Harjit reside together in the same house. My son Harjit Singh has Gurjot Singh aged about 7 ½ years, who is studying in Class I in St. Josephs School, Dugri Road, Dhandra. Presently, vacation in school and as such, Gurjot Singh remains in the house. learned guilty of to undergo -. 11.06.2000 registered at Police at the instance of /A) and have two sons namely Bhagwant Singh and Harjit has Gurjot Singh aged about 7 ½ years, who is Presently, remains in the house. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) Today at about 10.30 AM, returned from daughters and daughter’s son Gurjot Singh also started watching T.V. suddenly he went towards the main gate. (Gurjot Singh) was not found, I alongwith other members of the village started searching for him. Some other villagers for him in the village as well as in the neighbouring locality and villages. Later in the evening, my son Harjit Singh lodged a report regarding disappearance visited my house. We h Singh so far. We suspect kidnapped by some unknown person/persons with an intention to kill him. Legal action be taken. 3. ASI Jagdish same to the Police Station for lodging of FIR. The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which statements of Paramjit Singh and Jaswant Singh on 13.06.2000, investigation was taken over by Inspector Maninder Bedi (PW-14). 4. It is the case of prosecution that PW mentioned that he had seen Gurjot 10.30 AM on 11.06.2000 Singh (PW unknown caller on safe return of Gurjot Singh prosecution that intervening heavy gunny bag on his left sho (O&M) ( 2 ) Today at about 10.30 AM, when I alongwith returned from Gurdwara after paying daughters and daughter’s son were already Gurjot Singh also started watching T.V. suddenly he went towards the main gate. (Gurjot Singh) was not found, I alongwith other members of the village started searching for him. Some other villagers for him in the village as well as in the neighbouring locality and villages. Later in the evening, my son Harjit Singh lodged a report regarding disappearance of my grand-son pursuant to which you visited my house. We have not been able to Singh so far. We suspect that my grand kidnapped by some unknown person/persons with an intention to kill him. Legal action be taken.” ASI Jagdish Singh (PW-10), after recording the aforesaid statement same to the Police Station for lodging of FIR. The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which statements of Paramjit Singh and Jaswant Singh were recorded on 13.06.2000, investigation was taken over by Inspector Maninder Bedi It is the case of prosecution that PW-3 Harchand Singh in his statement mentioned that he had seen Gurjot Singh in the company of accused at about on 11.06.2000. It is further the case of prosecution that Singh (PW-11) disclosed that he had received a telephone call from an unknown caller on 12.06.2000 demanding a return of Gurjot Singh, who was missing prosecution that Jaswant Singh (PW-5) had seen the accused on the night intervening 11/12.06.2000 at about 12.30 AM (mid night) heavy gunny bag on his left shoulder. It is further the case of prosecution that I alongwith my grand-son Gurjot Singh after paying obeisance, my grand-son, grand already watching T.V. in the verandah Gurjot Singh also started watching T.V. alongwith them. However, suddenly he went towards the main gate. After about half an hour, when he (Gurjot Singh) was not found, I alongwith other members of the village started searching for him. Some other villagers and relatives also searched for him in the village as well as in the neighbouring locality and villages. Later in the evening, my son Harjit Singh lodged a report regarding son pursuant to which you (ASI Jagdish Singh) ave not been able to trace my grand-son Gurjot that my grand-son Gurjot Singh has been kidnapped by some unknown person/persons with an intention to kill him. after recording the aforesaid statement, sent the same to the Police Station for lodging of FIR. The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which statements of Paramjit Kaur, Harchand were recorded on 12.06.2000. On the next day i.e. 13.06.2000, investigation was taken over by Inspector Maninder Bedi Harchand Singh in his statement Singh in the company of accused at about . It is further the case of prosecution that Bhagwant disclosed that he had received a telephone call from an a ransom of Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of , who was missing. It is further the case of had seen the accused on the night at about 12.30 AM (mid night) while carrying a It is further the case of prosecution that Gurjot Singh son, grand- verandah. However, , when he (Gurjot Singh) was not found, I alongwith other members of the village also searched for him in the village as well as in the neighbouring locality and villages. Later in the evening, my son Harjit Singh lodged a report regarding (ASI Jagdish Singh) son Gurjot son Gurjot Singh has been kidnapped by some unknown person/persons with an intention to kill him. , sent the same to the Police Station for lodging of FIR. The matter was investigated by Kaur, Harchand 0. On the next day i.e. 13.06.2000, investigation was taken over by Inspector Maninder Bedi Harchand Singh in his statement Singh in the company of accused at about Bhagwant disclosed that he had received a telephone call from an ieu of It is further the case of had seen the accused on the night while carrying a It is further the case of prosecution that VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) the accused Sarpanch and that the accused had Balbir Singh, ex Gurjot Singh statement to the effect that after murdering Gurjot Singh dead body in the fields belonging to Jagir Singh Dhandra. Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the dead body of Gurjot was exhumed the place of recovery of dead body was prepared. Inquest proceedings were conducted. Post Gurjot Singh. accused suffered another disclosure statement as regards concealment of a pair of slippers nominated places and the same were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW 5. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan China Kumar Pandit Magistrate Ist Class, Sessions, where charges were framed against accused for offence pleaded not guilty and claimed 6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their testimonies is PW-1 Sh. the Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana to associate (O&M) ( 3 ) the accused was produced before police on and that the accused had suffered a disclosure statement before Balbir Singh, ex-Sarpanch (PW-9) confessing his guilt of having murdered Gurjot Singh. As per prosecution, accused allegedly statement to the effect that after murdering Gurjot Singh dead body in the fields belonging to Jagir Singh Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the dead body of Gurjot humed in the presence of Ram Singh, the place of recovery of dead body was prepared. Inquest proceedings were conducted. Post-mortem examination was got conducted on the dead body of Gurjot Singh. It is further the case of prosecution accused suffered another disclosure statement as regards concealment of a ippers of Gurjot Singh and a spade, which he got r nominated places and the same were taken into possession vide recovery PW-10/E. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan Kumar Pandit on 07.09.2000 in the Court of Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, who committed where charges were framed against accused for offence punishable under Section 302 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein . Ram Singh, Tehsildar, Ludhiana, stated that he was deputed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana to associate was produced before police on 13.06.2000 by Balbir Singh, ex suffered a disclosure statement before confessing his guilt of having murdered As per prosecution, accused allegedly made a disclosure statement to the effect that after murdering Gurjot Singh, he had buried his dead body in the fields belonging to Jagir Singh in the area of village Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the dead body of Gurjot Ram Singh, Tehsildar. Rough site plan of the place of recovery of dead body was prepared. Inquest proceedings were amination was got conducted on the dead body of It is further the case of prosecution that on 16.06.2000, accused suffered another disclosure statement as regards concealment of a of Gurjot Singh and a spade, which he got recovered from the nominated places and the same were taken into possession vide recovery Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against accused in the Court of learned Judicial who committed the case to the Court of where charges were framed against accused China Kumar Pandit 302 IPC on 30.10.2000 to which he The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 14 PWs being briefly referred to herein under:- , Ludhiana, stated that he was deputed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ludhiana to associate himself with 13.06.2000 by Balbir Singh, ex- suffered a disclosure statement before confessing his guilt of having murdered made a disclosure had buried his lage Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the dead body of Gurjot Rough site plan of the place of recovery of dead body was prepared. Inquest proceedings were amination was got conducted on the dead body of 16.06.2000, accused suffered another disclosure statement as regards concealment of a covered from the nominated places and the same were taken into possession vide recovery accused Judicial the case to the Court of China Kumar Pandit .2000 to which he PWs. , Ludhiana, stated that he was deputed by with VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) the investigation of the present case and that he had accordingly associated SHO, custody, made a confessional statement to the effect that he had murdered Gurjot Singh and had concealed his dead body in the fields on the road leading to Alamgir and that the dead body had been a plastic bag and had been get the same recovered. He stated that pursuant to said statement, the accused the dead body in his presence from a PW-2 Hardev tune with the statement which he had made to the police on the basis of which FIR had been lodged. He further stated that the accused had made a disclosure statement regarding murder of his gra regards concealment of his dead body and had got the same recovered by digging out Ram Singh and Balbir Singh. PW-3 Harchand Singh (complainant), stated that on reached near the Alamgir Gurdwara after paying obeisance holding Gurjot Singh’s arm belonging to Hardev Singh. Gurjot Singh was missing from his house. PW-4 Gurdip Singh had got recovered the dead body of Gurjot Singh from his fi the instance of accused China Kumar Pandit. PW-5 Jaswant Singh was working as a labourer in their village since the last 5/6 years that on the night intervening 11/12.06.2000 night) (O&M) ( 4 ) the investigation of the present case and that he had accordingly associated with the police party headed by Inspector SHO, P.S.Sadar, Ludhiana. He stated that the accused, who was in custody, made a confessional statement to the effect that he had murdered Gurjot Singh and had concealed his dead body in the fields on the road leading to Alamgir and that the dead body had been a plastic bag and had been buried by digging a pit and get the same recovered. He stated that pursuant to said statement, the accused led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the dead body in his presence from a Hardev Singh, who is the complainant in the present case, stated in tune with the statement which he had made to the police on the basis of which FIR had been lodged. He further stated that the accused had made a disclosure statement regarding murder of his gra gards concealment of his dead body and had got the same recovered by digging out the pit in his presence as well as in the presence of Ram Singh and Balbir Singh. Harchand Singh, one of the neighbourers of (complainant), stated that on 11.06.2000 reached near the house of Hardev Singh while Alamgir Gurdwara after paying obeisance holding Gurjot Singh’s arm and taking him belonging to Hardev Singh. He stated that later he came to know that Gurjot Singh was missing from his house. Gurdip Singh stated that on 13.06.2000 at about 5.00 PM, the police had got recovered the dead body of Gurjot Singh from his fi the instance of accused China Kumar Pandit. Jaswant Singh stated that he knew accused was working as a labourer in their village since the last 5/6 years that on the night intervening 11/12.06.2000 night), when he was returning to his house from his fields after the investigation of the present case and that he had accordingly the police party headed by Inspector Maninder Bedi, . He stated that the accused, who was in custody, made a confessional statement to the effect that he had murdered Gurjot Singh and had concealed his dead body in the fields on the road leading to Alamgir and that the dead body had been put in by digging a pit and that he could get the same recovered. He stated that pursuant to said statement, the led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the dead body in his presence from a pit dug by the accused himself. Singh, who is the complainant in the present case, stated in tune with the statement which he had made to the police on the basis of which FIR had been lodged. He further stated that the accused had made a disclosure statement regarding murder of his grand-son and as gards concealment of his dead body and had got the same recovered the pit in his presence as well as in the presence of , one of the neighbourers of Hardev Singh 11.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM, when he house of Hardev Singh while returning from Alamgir Gurdwara after paying obeisance, he saw the accused taking him inside the cattle shed He stated that later he came to know that Gurjot Singh was missing from his house. 13.06.2000 at about 5.00 PM, the police had got recovered the dead body of Gurjot Singh from his fields at the instance of accused China Kumar Pandit. accused China Kumar Pandit, who was working as a labourer in their village since the last 5/6 years and that on the night intervening 11/12.06.2000 at about 12.30 (mid to his house from his fields after the investigation of the present case and that he had accordingly Maninder Bedi, . He stated that the accused, who was in custody, made a confessional statement to the effect that he had murdered Gurjot Singh and had concealed his dead body in the fields put in he could get the same recovered. He stated that pursuant to said statement, the led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the accused himself. Singh, who is the complainant in the present case, stated in tune with the statement which he had made to the police on the basis of which FIR had been lodged. He further stated that the accused had son and as gards concealment of his dead body and had got the same recovered the pit in his presence as well as in the presence of Singh at about 10.30 AM, when he from he saw the accused cattle shed He stated that later he came to know that 13.06.2000 at about 5.00 PM, the police elds at China Kumar Pandit, who and at about 12.30 (mid to his house from his fields after VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) irrigating his paddy crop, he saw accused China Kumar coming out of cattle shed of Hardev Singh his left shoulder and was also carrying a shoulder and when he enquired from accused as to where he was proceeding to, he (accused) seem going to the tubewell. PW-6 Harjit Singh lodging of DDR on and proved the same as recovery of golden disclosed place on 18.06.2000 PW-7 Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Medical Officer, alongwith Dr. Harjap Singh had on the dead body of report as Ex.P asphyxia PW-8 HC his affidavit Ex. the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and also to SSP and other higher officers on PW-9 Balbir Singh the accused, who 13.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM. He stated that the accused used to reside in the cattle shed of Hardev Singh of his village and he disclosed to him that on account of greed of money, he had taken along Gurjot Sin and had later killed him by strangulating him from his neck and thereafter buried his dead body in the fields of Jagir Singh. He stated that on the asking of the accused, he produced him before the police and that upon interrogation of the accused by the police in his (O&M) ( 5 ) irrigating his paddy crop, he saw accused China Kumar coming out of cattle shed of Hardev Singh while carrying a his left shoulder and was also carrying a shoulder and when he enquired from accused as to where he was proceeding to, he (accused) seemed going to the tubewell. Harjit Singh, father of Gurjot Singh (deceased) lodging of DDR on 11.06.2000 regarding disappearance of his son and proved the same as Ex.PW-6/A recovery of golden karra at the instance of accused from the disclosed place pursuant to the disclosure statement made by 18.06.2000. Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Medical Officer, alongwith Dr. Harjap Singh had conducted on the dead body of Gurjot Singh. report as Ex.PW-2/E, he stated that the cause of asphyxia. HC Surinder Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-8/A, wherein he deposed that the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and also to SSP and other higher officers on 11.06.2000. Balbir Singh stated that he is ex-Sarpanch of the village and know the accused, who had come to his house 13.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM. He stated that the accused used to reside in the cattle shed of Hardev Singh of his village and he disclosed to him that on account of greed of money, he had taken along Gurjot Singh with him on 11.06.2000 so as to extract money and had later killed him by strangulating him from his neck and thereafter buried his dead body in the fields of Jagir Singh. He stated that on the asking of the accused, he produced him before the police nd that upon interrogation of the accused by the police in his irrigating his paddy crop, he saw accused China Kumar coming out while carrying a heavy gunny bag on his left shoulder and was also carrying a kahi (spade) on his right shoulder and when he enquired from accused as to where he was ed perplexed and stated that he was r of Gurjot Singh (deceased), stated with regard to 11.06.2000 regarding disappearance of his son 6/A. He also stated with regard to at the instance of accused from the pursuant to the disclosure statement made by accused Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Medical Officer, stated that on 14.06.2000, he conducted post-mortem examination Gurjot Singh. While proving the post-mortem he stated that the cause of death was due to who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence , wherein he deposed that he had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and also to SSP and other Sarpanch of the village and know had come to his house in village Dhandra on 13.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM. He stated that the accused used to reside in the cattle shed of Hardev Singh of his village and he disclosed to him that on account of greed of money, he had taken 11.06.2000 so as to extract money and had later killed him by strangulating him from his neck and thereafter buried his dead body in the fields of Jagir Singh. He stated that on the asking of the accused, he produced him before the police nd that upon interrogation of the accused by the police in his irrigating his paddy crop, he saw accused China Kumar coming out bag on on his right shoulder and when he enquired from accused as to where he was perplexed and stated that he was stated with regard to 11.06.2000 regarding disappearance of his son . He also stated with regard to at the instance of accused from the accused .06.2000, he mortem examination mortem was due to who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and also to SSP and other Sarpanch of the village and knows in village Dhandra on 13.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM. He stated that the accused used to reside in the cattle shed of Hardev Singh of his village and he disclosed to him that on account of greed of money, he had taken 11.06.2000 so as to extract money and had later killed him by strangulating him from his neck and thereafter buried his dead body in the fields of Jagir Singh. He stated that on the asking of the accused, he produced him before the police nd that upon interrogation of the accused by the police in his VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) presence and also in the presence of Ram Singh, Tehsildar, accused the fields by that the accused body of Gurjot Singh recovered by digging PW-10 ASI Jagdish Singh Gurjot Singh had been lodged in the police station on he had gone to the village Dhandra of Hardev Singh He further stated that the accused was interrogated by Inspector Maninder Bedi on presence of Jagjit Singh accused had disclosed that he had concealed a of sl that p recovered. He further stated that on Bedi interrogated the accused during the course of which the accused disclosed that he had pursuant to the same, he got the gold bangle recovered. PW-11 Bhagwant Singh stated that nephew and that on from an unknown person, who demanded a ransom lieu of ensuring safety of Gurjot Singh. He stated that the matter was discussed in the family and caller. He further stated that been made by China Kumar Pandit, who was shed, as he was also PW-12 SI Dalip Kumar stated that on investigation of the present case and had interrogated the accused in the presence of suffered a disclosure statement regarding concealment of a gold bangle and pursuant thereto (O&M) ( 6 ) presence and also in the presence of Ram Singh, Tehsildar, accused disclosed that he had buried the dead body of Gurjot Singh in the fields by putting the dead body in a that the accused led them to the nominated place and got the dead body of Gurjot Singh recovered by digging ASI Jagdish Singh stated that a report Gurjot Singh had been lodged in the police station on he had gone to the village Dhandra of Hardev Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Harchand Singh and Jaswant Singh He further stated that the accused was interrogated by Inspector Maninder Bedi on 16.06.2000 in his presence as well as in the presence of Jagjit Singh and that in his disclosure statement, the accused had disclosed that he had concealed a of slippers of the deceased in the fodder room that pursuant to the same, the accused recovered. He further stated that on Bedi interrogated the accused during the course of which the accused disclosed that he had concealed a gold bangle in his room pursuant to the same, he got the gold bangle recovered. Bhagwant Singh stated that the deceased Gurjot Singh was his nephew and that on 12.06.2000, they had received a telephone call from an unknown person, who demanded a ransom lieu of ensuring safety of Gurjot Singh. He stated that the matter was discussed in the family and they wait caller. He further stated that he suspected that the telephone call had been made by China Kumar Pandit, who was shed, as he was also missing from the SI Dalip Kumar stated that on 18.06.2000 investigation of the present case and had interrogated the accused in the presence of complainant during the course of which the accused suffered a disclosure statement regarding concealment of a gold bangle and pursuant thereto the accused led the police party to the presence and also in the presence of Ram Singh, Tehsildar, t that he had buried the dead body of Gurjot Singh in putting the dead body in a gunny bag. He further stated led them to the nominated place and got the dead body of Gurjot Singh recovered by digging a pit. stated that a report regarding disappearance of Gurjot Singh had been lodged in the police station on 11.06.2000 and he had gone to the village Dhandra and had recorded the statement Harchand Singh and Jaswant Singh He further stated that the accused was interrogated by Inspector 16.06.2000 in his presence as well as in the and that in his disclosure statement, the accused had disclosed that he had concealed a kassi (spade) and a pair fodder room of Hardev Singh and , the accused got the aforesaid articles recovered. He further stated that on 18.06.2000, SI Dalip Kumar Bedi interrogated the accused during the course of which the accused concealed a gold bangle in his room and that pursuant to the same, he got the gold bangle recovered. the deceased Gurjot Singh was his , they had received a telephone call from an unknown person, who demanded a ransom of Rs.15 lakhs lieu of ensuring safety of Gurjot Singh. He stated that the matter was they waited for another call from the he suspected that the telephone call had been made by China Kumar Pandit, who was working in their cattle missing from the same day itself. 18.06.2000, he was entrusted with the investigation of the present case and had interrogated the accused in during the course of which the accused suffered a disclosure statement regarding concealment of a gold the accused led the police party to the the that he had buried the dead body of Gurjot Singh in her stated led them to the nominated place and got the dead regarding disappearance of 11.06.2000 and and had recorded the statements Harchand Singh and Jaswant Singh. He further stated that the accused was interrogated by Inspector 16.06.2000 in his presence as well as in the and that in his disclosure statement, the and a pair and the aforesaid articles , SI Dalip Kumar Bedi interrogated the accused during the course of which the accused that the deceased Gurjot Singh was his , they had received a telephone call in lieu of ensuring safety of Gurjot Singh. He stated that the matter was for another call from the he suspected that the telephone call had cattle entrusted with the investigation of the present case and had interrogated the accused in during the course of which the accused suffered a disclosure statement regarding concealment of a gold the accused led the police party to the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) nominated place and got the same recovered, which was taken into possession vide rec PW-13 MHC Hardev Sing Station Sadar, Ludhiana on DDR Register and proved copy of DDR No. Ex.PW PW-14 Inspecto investigation of the present case, stated with regard to the same. He specifically stated produced the accused and also as regards the extra judicial confession made by accused before Balbir Singh. He further stated with regard to the calling of the Executive Magistrate Shri and in whose presence, the accused had g Singh (deceased) interrogation of accused on made disclosure statement regarding concealment of pair of sl of the deceased and also a sp leading the police party to the nominated place. 7. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Kumar Pandit denied the The accused after tendering in evidence closed his defence evidence. 8. The learned trial Court, upon held that the charges framed against the accused for Section 302 judgment as mentioned above. (O&M) ( 7 ) nominated place and got the same recovered, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW MHC Hardev Singh stated that he was posted as MHC Station Sadar, Ludhiana on 11.06.2000. He had brought the relevant DDR Register and proved copy of DDR No. Ex.PW-6/A. Inspector Maninder Bedi, who had conducted substantial part of investigation of the present case, stated with regard to the same. He specifically stated regarding Balbir Singh, ex produced the accused and also as regards the extra judicial confession made by accused before Balbir Singh. He further stated with regard the calling of the Executive Magistrate Shri and in whose presence, the accused had g Singh (deceased) recovered. He also stated with regard to the interrogation of accused on 16.06.2000 during the course of which he made disclosure statement regarding concealment of pair of sl of the deceased and also a spade, which he got recovered leading the police party to the nominated place. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused Kumar Pandit was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the entire case of prosecution in toto The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence. after tendering in evidence a certified copy of the statement of Balbir Singh closed his defence evidence. The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the held that the charges framed against the accused for Section 302 stood duly proved and accordingly sentenced as mentioned above. nominated place and got the same recovered, which was taken into overy memo Ex.PW-6/D. stated that he was posted as MHC at Police 11.06.2000. He had brought the relevant DDR Register and proved copy of DDR No.13 dated 11.06.2000 as , who had conducted substantial part of investigation of the present case, stated with regard to the same. He Balbir Singh, ex-Sarpanch having produced the accused and also as regards the extra judicial confession made by accused before Balbir Singh. He further stated with regard the calling of the Executive Magistrate Shri Ram Singh, Tehsildar and in whose presence, the accused had got the dead body of Gurjot recovered. He also stated with regard to the 16.06.2000 during the course of which he made disclosure statement regarding concealment of pair of slippers ade, which he got recovered while leading the police party to the nominated place. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused China recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein toto and pleaded false implication. any evidence in his defence. The accused certified copy of the statement of Balbir Singh marshalling the evidence brought on record, held that the charges framed against the accused for offence punishable under stood duly proved and accordingly sentenced him vide impugned nominated place and got the same recovered, which was taken into at Police 11.06.2000. He had brought the relevant 11.06.2000 as , who had conducted substantial part of investigation of the present case, stated with regard to the same. He having produced the accused and also as regards the extra judicial confession made by accused before Balbir Singh. He further stated with regard Ram Singh, Tehsildar ot the dead body of Gurjot recovered. He also stated with regard to the 16.06.2000 during the course of which he ippers while China wherein he false implication. The accused certified copy of the statement of Balbir Singh brought on record, offence punishable under vide impugned VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) 9. Learned counsel for the submitted that and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of maneuvered confession does not inspire confidence and in any case is a weak type of evidence and in the absence of any alleged factum of recovery is insufficient to h even the alleged ‘last seen’ evidence in the shape of statements of PW Harchand Singh and PW several chinks in the case of prosecution, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 10. Opposing the the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution forms a complete chain and that since it recovered, which he had buried in the fields Executive Magistrate 11. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 12. Although the factum of homicidal death of the deceased Gurjot Singh is not seriously disputed, but evidence in this regard. The prosecution has examined PW Singh, who alongwith Dr. Harjap Singh had examination on the dead body of (O&M) ( 8 ) Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the submitted that it is a case of blind murder based on circumstantial evidence and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of maneuvered evidence. It has been submitted confession does not inspire confidence and in any case is a weak type of and in the absence of any other corroborative piece of evidence, the alleged factum of recovery of dead body allegedly insufficient to hold him guilty. Learned counsel even the alleged ‘last seen’ evidence in the shape of statements of PW Harchand Singh and PW-5 Jaswant Singh chinks in the case of prosecution, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case where the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution forms a complete chain and that since it is a case where the accused himself got the dead body recovered, which he had buried in the fields Executive Magistrate, his complicity is clearly evident. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. Although the factum of homicidal death of the deceased Gurjot Singh is not seriously disputed, but it is apposite to first of all evidence in this regard. The prosecution has examined PW , who alongwith Dr. Harjap Singh had examination on the dead body of Gurjot Singh on while assailing the impugned judgment, blind murder based on circumstantial evidence and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of It has been submitted that the alleged extra judicial confession does not inspire confidence and in any case is a weak type of corroborative piece of evidence, the of dead body allegedly at the instance of accused Learned counsel further submitted that even the alleged ‘last seen’ evidence in the shape of statements of PW 5 Jaswant Singh is shaky and as such, there being chinks in the case of prosecution, the impugned judgment deserves to appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case where the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution forms a complete chain is a case where the accused himself got the dead body recovered, which he had buried in the fields and that too in the presence of a , his complicity is clearly evident. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. Although the factum of homicidal death of the deceased Gurjot Singh is not apposite to first of all briefly refer to the medical evidence in this regard. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Dr. Gurcharan , who alongwith Dr. Harjap Singh had conducted post-mortem Gurjot Singh on 14.06.2000. While proving impugned judgment, blind murder based on circumstantial evidence and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of that the alleged extra judicial confession does not inspire confidence and in any case is a weak type of corroborative piece of evidence, the t the instance of accused further submitted that even the alleged ‘last seen’ evidence in the shape of statements of PW-3 and as such, there being chinks in the case of prosecution, the impugned judgment deserves to appeal, learned State counsel submitted that it is a case where the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution forms a complete chain is a case where the accused himself got the dead body and that too in the presence of a Court and with Although the factum of homicidal death of the deceased Gurjot Singh is not refer to the medical Gurcharan mortem proving VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) the post-mortem report as Ex.PW cause of death was due to asphyxia. mortem report are reproduced herein under: “It was a dead body of a male child moderately built and nourished wearing T-shirt and half pant, body was smeared with mud, body was decomposed. Peeling of skin was present at places with blisters formation here and there. Penis and scr over the body. Face was disfigured. Nails were not detachable. Scalp hair were not present. Tongue was protruding out and clinched in teeth. Teeth were detachable. Sutures of skull were looses and brain liquef was contusion 1” x ¼” present on both sides of the neck. On exploration underlying muscles and tissues were ecchymosed. Hyoid bone was pressed. Both lungs were liquefied. Laryn were congested. 13. This witness was not cross opportunity given to him. or his opinion. established. 14. Admittedly, it is a case and the prosecution mainly banks upon the evidence: (i) ‘last seen’ evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW Singh and PW (ii) extra judicial confession made by the accused before Singh, ex (iii) recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused. 15. ‘Last seen’ evidence missing from his house on the morning on (O&M) ( 9 ) mortem report as Ex.PW-2/E, PW cause of death was due to asphyxia. His observations as recorded in the mortem report are reproduced herein under: It was a dead body of a male child moderately built and nourished wearing shirt and half pant, body was smeared with mud, body was decomposed. Peeling of skin was present at places with blisters formation here and there. Penis and scrotoum were swollen over the body. Face was disfigured. Nails were not detachable. Scalp hair were not present. Tongue was protruding out and clinched in teeth. Teeth were detachable. Sutures of skull were looses and brain liquef was contusion 1” x ¼” present on both sides of the neck. On exploration underlying muscles and tissues were ecchymosed. Hyoid bone was pressed. Both lungs were liquefied. Larynx and were congested.” s witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given to him. There is nothing so as to either doubt his veracity or his opinion. As such, the factum of death being a homicidal death is duly established. Admittedly, it is a case where the occurrence was not witnessed by anybody and the prosecution mainly banks upon the ‘last seen’ evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW Singh and PW-5 Jaswant Singh; xtra judicial confession made by the accused before Singh, ex-Sarpanch; recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused. ‘Last seen’ evidence – It is the case of prosecution that Gurjot missing from his house on the morning on PW-7 categorically stated that the His observations as recorded in the post mortem report are reproduced herein under: It was a dead body of a male child moderately built and nourished wearing shirt and half pant, body was smeared with mud, body was putrefied and decomposed. Peeling of skin was present at places with blisters formation m were swollen, maggots were crawling over the body. Face was disfigured. Nails were not detachable. Scalp hair were not present. Tongue was protruding out and clinched in teeth. Teeth were detachable. Sutures of skull were looses and brain liquefied. There was contusion 1” x ¼” present on both sides of the neck. On exploration underlying muscles and tissues were ecchymosed. Hyoid bone was pressed. and trachea congested. Other visceras examined on behalf of the accused despite There is nothing so as to either doubt his veracity As such, the factum of death being a homicidal death is duly where the occurrence was not witnessed by anybody and the prosecution mainly banks upon the following pieces of circumstantial ‘last seen’ evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW-3 Harchand xtra judicial confession made by the accused before PW-9 Balbir recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused. It is the case of prosecution that Gurjot Singh went missing from his house on the morning on 11.06.2000, as has been the post- It was a dead body of a male child moderately built and nourished wearing and decomposed. Peeling of skin was present at places with blisters formation all over the body. Face was disfigured. Nails were not detachable. Scalp hair were not present. Tongue was protruding out and clinched in teeth. Teeth ied. There was contusion 1” x ¼” present on both sides of the neck. On exploration underlying muscles and tissues were ecchymosed. Hyoid bone was pressed. congested. Other visceras examined on behalf of the accused despite There is nothing so as to either doubt his veracity As such, the factum of death being a homicidal death is duly where the occurrence was not witnessed by anybody following pieces of circumstantial Harchand 9 Balbir Singh went 11.06.2000, as has been VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) specifically in the witness resident of the same village, AM, when he was returning from Gurdwara and when he was near the house of Hardev Singh, he saw the accused them were going inside the cattle shed of Hardev Singh that he came to know that Gurjot Singh was missing. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant said witness i.e. PW examination “………..I I was not present on the alleged day of missing as I was away to Chakkar in Jagraon. I did not state this fact to the police in my statement. China Pandit was arrested on 11/12.06.2000. Dog squad was not brought by the police in our village Dhandra. I came to know about missing of Gurjot Singh at 3 P.M. on 12.06.2000. I did not go to the police station on 12.06.2000. 17. Learned coun was not present in the village on the day when Gurjot Singh went missing, therefore, the said fact would demolish the had seen the accused going alongwith Gurjo 18. This Court, however, finds that the he was not in the village on said day can be interpreted as it can be of the day and may have been present in the morning at about 10.30 AM, (O&M) ( 10 ) specifically stated by Hardev Singh (complainant) in the FIR and also while in the witness-box. The prosecution has examined PW resident of the same village, who stated that on AM, when he was returning from Gurdwara and when he was near the house of Hardev Singh, he saw the accused alongwith Gurjot Singh and both of them were going inside the cattle shed of Hardev Singh that he came to know that Gurjot Singh was missing. Learned counsel for the appellant in an attempt to assail the credibility of the said witness i.e. PW-3 has referred to the examination: ………..I came to know about the missing of Gurjot Singh on the next day. I was not present on the alleged day of missing as I was away to Chakkar in Jagraon. I did not state this fact to the police in my statement. China Pandit was arrested on 13.06.2000. China Pandit was not in the village on 11/12.06.2000. Dog squad was not brought by the police in our village Dhandra. I came to know about missing of Gurjot Singh at 3 P.M. on 12.06.2000. I did not go to the police station on 12.06.2000. Learned counsel submitted that since the witness (PW was not present in the village on the day when Gurjot Singh went missing, therefore, the said fact would demolish the had seen the accused going alongwith Gurjo This Court, however, finds that the statement of the witness to the effect he was not in the village on said day can be interpreted as it can be interpreted to mean that he might have gone out during the course of the day and may have been present in the morning at about 10.30 AM, stated by Hardev Singh (complainant) in the FIR and also while box. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Harchand Singh, a that on 11.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM, when he was returning from Gurdwara and when he was near the house alongwith Gurjot Singh and both of them were going inside the cattle shed of Hardev Singh and that it was later that he came to know that Gurjot Singh was missing. in an attempt to assail the credibility of the has referred to the following extract from his cross missing of Gurjot Singh on the next day. I was not present on the alleged day of missing as I was away to Chakkar in Jagraon. I did not state this fact to the police in my statement. China Pandit a Pandit was not in the village on 11/12.06.2000. Dog squad was not brought by the police in our village Dhandra. I came to know about missing of Gurjot Singh at 3 P.M. on 12.06.2000. I did not go to the police station on 12.06.2000.” sel submitted that since the witness (PW-3) has stated that he was not present in the village on the day when Gurjot Singh went missing, therefore, the said fact would demolish the stand of the prosecution that he had seen the accused going alongwith Gurjot Singh (deceased). statement of the witness to the effect that he was not in the village on said day can be interpreted either way inasmuch interpreted to mean that he might have gone out during the course of the day and may have been present in the morning at about 10.30 AM, stated by Hardev Singh (complainant) in the FIR and also while Harchand Singh, a 11.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM, when he was returning from Gurdwara and when he was near the house alongwith Gurjot Singh and both of s later in an attempt to assail the credibility of the cross- missing of Gurjot Singh on the next day. I was not present on the alleged day of missing as I was away to Chakkar in Jagraon. I did not state this fact to the police in my statement. China Pandit a Pandit was not in the village on 11/12.06.2000. Dog squad was not brought by the police in our village Dhandra. I came to know about missing of Gurjot Singh at 3 P.M. on stated that he was not present in the village on the day when Gurjot Singh went missing, stand of the prosecution that he that either way inasmuch interpreted to mean that he might have gone out during the course of the day and may have been present in the morning at about 10.30 AM, VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) when he had seen the accused. He had no reason to that stage inasmuch as the accused was resi Singh and used to work as labourer in the 19. The other piece of ‘last seen’ is in the shape of PW stated that on the night intervening 11/12.06.2000, when he was home from his fie 12.30 AM (mid night) and that the accused at that time was carrying a shoulder and was also carrying a being questioned, he was rather tubewell. While the said statement could not be shattered during his cross examination, but it is well settled has to be assessed 20. Extra judicial confession to the house of 13.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM and confessed his guilt Singh produced him before the police. He further stated that the police had called Shri Ram Singh, Executive Magistrate accused got the dead body of Gurjot digging a pit and that the dead body had been kept in a stated that he had attested the recovery memo pertaining to the recovery of dead body alongwith Shri Ram Singh, Tehsildar. The witness was cross-examined, but nothing his cross-examination so as to either doubt (O&M) ( 11 ) when he had seen the accused. He had no reason to that stage inasmuch as the accused was resi Singh and used to work as labourer in the village The other piece of ‘last seen’ is in the shape of PW stated that on the night intervening 11/12.06.2000, when he was home from his fields after irrigating paddy crop, he 12.30 AM (mid night) who was coming out of cattle shed of Hardev Singh and that the accused at that time was carrying a shoulder and was also carrying a kahi (spade) on his right shoulder and being questioned, he was rather perplexed and stated that he was going to the While the said statement could not be shattered during his cross examination, but it is well settled that the ‘last seen’ evide assessed in the context of other evidence led by the prosecution. Extra judicial confession – As per the case of prosecution, the accused went to the house of PW-9 Balbir Singh, ex- 13.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM and confessed his guilt Singh produced him before the police. He further stated that the police had called Shri Ram Singh, Executive Magistrate accused got the dead body of Gurjot Singh recovered from the fields by digging a pit and that the dead body had been kept in a stated that he had attested the recovery memo pertaining to the recovery of dead body alongwith Shri Ram Singh, Tehsildar. The witness was examined, but nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of examination so as to either doubt when he had seen the accused. He had no reason to suspect anything foul that stage inasmuch as the accused was residing in the cattle shed of Hardev village. The other piece of ‘last seen’ is in the shape of PW-5 Jaswant Singh, who stated that on the night intervening 11/12.06.2000, when he was returning lds after irrigating paddy crop, he saw the accused at about who was coming out of cattle shed of Hardev Singh and that the accused at that time was carrying a heavy gunny bag on his left (spade) on his right shoulder and upon perplexed and stated that he was going to the While the said statement could not be shattered during his cross that the ‘last seen’ evidence and its value in the context of other evidence led by the prosecution. As per the case of prosecution, the accused went -Sarpanch at village Dhandra on 13.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM and confessed his guilt and that PW-9 Balbir Singh produced him before the police. He further stated that the police had called Shri Ram Singh, Executive Magistrate and in whose presence the Singh recovered from the fields by digging a pit and that the dead body had been kept in a gunny bag. He further stated that he had attested the recovery memo pertaining to the recovery of dead body alongwith Shri Ram Singh, Tehsildar. The witness was briefly substantial could be elicited during the course of examination so as to either doubt his veracity or his credibility. foul at cattle shed of Hardev , who returning at about who was coming out of cattle shed of Hardev Singh heavy gunny bag on his left upon perplexed and stated that he was going to the While the said statement could not be shattered during his cross- nce and its value As per the case of prosecution, the accused went at village Dhandra on Balbir Singh produced him before the police. He further stated that the police had and in whose presence the Singh recovered from the fields by gunny bag. He further stated that he had attested the recovery memo pertaining to the recovery of briefly substantial could be elicited during the course of credibility. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) Since the said witness was an ex said to be a res with regard to the accused having confess his guilty. 21. As in the case of ‘last seen’ evidence, even the extra judicial confession is a piece of evidence context of other evidence brought on record. In the present case, the clinching piece of evidence relied upon recovery of dead body at the instance of reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 while considering been held as under: “……………….. piece of evidence by of law nor of prudence that the evidence furnishing extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless The evidence relating to extra judicial confession can be acted upon if the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness who appears to be unbiased and in respect of whom even remo brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. Anthony extra judicial confession, ruled that if the word spoken by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakable one showing that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. According to this (O&M) ( 12 ) Since the said witness was an ex-Sarpanch of the village, he can surely be said to be a respectable of the area and as such, there is nothing unnatural with regard to the accused having approached PW confess his guilty. n the case of ‘last seen’ evidence, even the extra judicial confession is a piece of evidence, the value of which has to be collectively assessed in the context of other evidence brought on record. In the present case, the clinching piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is a factum of recovery of dead body at the instance of reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 considering evidentiary value of an extra been held as under: ………………..Though extra judicial confession is considered to be a weak piece of evidence by the courts, this Court finds that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that the evidence furnishing extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The evidence relating to extra judicial confession can be acted upon if the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness who appears to be unbiased and in respect of whom even remo brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48, this Court, while explaining the law relating to extra judicial confession, ruled that if the word spoken by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakable one showing that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. According to this Sarpanch of the village, he can surely be pectable of the area and as such, there is nothing unnatural approached PW-9 Balbir Singh so as to n the case of ‘last seen’ evidence, even the extra judicial confession is a , the value of which has to be collectively assessed in the context of other evidence brought on record. In the present case, the by the prosecution is a factum of recovery of dead body at the instance of accused himself. In this context reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583, wherein evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, it has Though extra judicial confession is considered to be a weak the courts, this Court finds that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that the evidence furnishing extra judicial confession corroborated by some other credible evidence. The evidence relating to extra judicial confession can be acted upon if the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness who appears to be unbiased and in respect of whom even remotely nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. In State of U.P. vs. M.K. t, while explaining the law relating to extra judicial confession, ruled that if the word spoken by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakable one showing that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. According to this Sarpanch of the village, he can surely be pectable of the area and as such, there is nothing unnatural 9 Balbir Singh so as to n the case of ‘last seen’ evidence, even the extra judicial confession is a , the value of which has to be collectively assessed in the context of other evidence brought on record. In the present case, the by the prosecution is a factum of . In this context Aftab , wherein judicial confession, it has Though extra judicial confession is considered to be a weak the courts, this Court finds that there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that the evidence furnishing extra judicial confession corroborated by some other credible evidence. The evidence relating to extra judicial confession can be acted upon if the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness tely nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for State of U.P. vs. M.K. t, while explaining the law relating to extra judicial confession, ruled that if the word spoken by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakable one showing that the accused is the may militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. According to this VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) Court, in such a situatio cause a shadow judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproaching, the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded ther case, it is proved by the prosecution that PW5, Anand Swaroop was not on inimical terms with the appellant at all. After subjecting his evidence to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, this Court finds that extra judicial co accepted by the Trial Court and the High Court. 22. Recovery of dead body is the factum of recovery of dead body at the instance of none else, but the accused, which was got recovered on the same very day when he surrendered before the police on went to the house of produced the accused disclosure statement with regard to Singh in the fields of Jagir Singh. The said disclosure s before PW- Tehsildar. It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the nominated place and got the dead body called by the police before the body was exhumed, stated regard to the factum of recovery of dead body by the accused in his presence. He stated that on District Magistrate to associate which was being conducted by a police party headed by Inspector Maninder Bedi. He stated that regard to his (O&M) ( 13 ) Court, in such a situation, to go in search of corroboration itself tends to cause a shadow of doubt over the evidence and if the evidence of extra judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproaching, the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded ther case, it is proved by the prosecution that PW5, Anand Swaroop was not on inimical terms with the appellant at all. After subjecting his evidence to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, this Court finds that extra judicial confession referred to by the witness is reliable and is rightly accepted by the Trial Court and the High Court. Recovery of dead body – The clinching piece of evidence is the factum of recovery of dead body at the instance of none else, but the accused, which was got recovered on the same very day when he surrendered before the police on 13.06.2000. As per the case of prosecution went to the house of PW-9 Balbir Singh and confessed his guilt and the accused before the police the same very day where he made a disclosure statement with regard to the concealment of dead body of Gurjot Singh in the fields of Jagir Singh. The said disclosure s -14 Inspector Maninder Bedi in the presence of Sh. Ram Singh, Tehsildar. It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the nominated place and got the recovered by digging a pit. PW called by the police before the body was exhumed, stated regard to the factum of recovery of dead body by the accused in his presence. He stated that on 13.06.2000, he had specif District Magistrate to associate himself with the investigation of the case, which was being conducted by a police party headed by Inspector Maninder He stated that the accused had made a confessional statement with his having murdered Gurjot Singh and having n, to go in search of corroboration itself tends to of doubt over the evidence and if the evidence of extra judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproaching, the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon. Here, in this case, it is proved by the prosecution that PW5, Anand Swaroop was not on inimical terms with the appellant at all. After subjecting his evidence to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, this Court finds that extra nfession referred to by the witness is reliable and is rightly accepted by the Trial Court and the High Court.” piece of evidence in the present case is the factum of recovery of dead body at the instance of none else, but the accused, which was got recovered on the same very day when he surrendered 13.06.2000. As per the case of prosecution, the accused 9 Balbir Singh and confessed his guilt and who before the police the same very day where he made a the concealment of dead body of Gurjot Singh in the fields of Jagir Singh. The said disclosure statement was made in the presence of Sh. Ram Singh, Tehsildar. It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the nominated place and got the PW-1 Ram Singh, who had been called by the police before the body was exhumed, stated specifically with regard to the factum of recovery of dead body by the accused in his presence. 13.06.2000, he had specifically been deputed by Additional with the investigation of the case, which was being conducted by a police party headed by Inspector Maninder the accused had made a confessional statement with having murdered Gurjot Singh and having put his dead body in a n, to go in search of corroboration itself tends to of doubt over the evidence and if the evidence of extra judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproaching, the same eon. Here, in this case, it is proved by the prosecution that PW5, Anand Swaroop was not on inimical terms with the appellant at all. After subjecting his evidence to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, this Court finds that extra nfession referred to by the witness is reliable and is rightly case is the factum of recovery of dead body at the instance of none else, but the accused, which was got recovered on the same very day when he surrendered , the accused who before the police the same very day where he made a the concealment of dead body of Gurjot tatement was made in the presence of Sh. Ram Singh, Tehsildar. It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the accused led the police party to the nominated place and got the 1 Ram Singh, who had been with regard to the factum of recovery of dead body by the accused in his presence. ically been deputed by Additional with the investigation of the case, which was being conducted by a police party headed by Inspector Maninder the accused had made a confessional statement with put his dead body in a VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) plastic bag and having buried the same in the fields. accused led the police party to the nominated place and got the dead body recovered by digging a pit and vide recovery memo Ex. Singh and Hardev Singh as well as by him. The witness was briefly cross examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be e during the course of his cross factum of recovery of dead body of Gurjot Singh at the instance of accused. 23. Since it is a case where the dead body ground by diggi and apparently it was only the accused who knew about the same and since the accused had got the same recovered Magistrate, the said the wake of such clinching evidence, this Court can very safely rely upon the other pieces of circumstantial evidence i.e. extra judicial confession and also the ‘last seen’ evidence particularly in view of the fact that th of time between the occurrence and also the time when the accused confessed his guilt and got the dead body recovered. While the deceased went missing on 11.06.2000, the accused confessed his guilt on the morning of and on the same day got recovered the dead body doubt the case of prosecution. 24. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the same are hereby affirmed. The appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. (O&M) ( 14 ) plastic bag and having buried the same in the fields. accused led the police party to the nominated place and got the dead body recovered by digging a pit and that the dead body was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-1/C, which was duly attested by PW Singh and Hardev Singh as well as by him. The witness was briefly cross on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be e during the course of his cross-examination so as to doubt factum of recovery of dead body of Gurjot Singh at the instance of accused. Since it is a case where the dead body had been concealed by bur ground by digging a pit, the same could not have been noticed by anybody and apparently it was only the accused who knew about the same and since the accused had got the same recovered and that too in the presence of a , the said factum virtually sounds the wake of such clinching evidence, this Court can very safely rely upon the other pieces of circumstantial evidence i.e. extra judicial confession and also the ‘last seen’ evidence particularly in view of the fact that th of time between the occurrence and also the time when the accused confessed his guilt and got the dead body recovered. While the deceased went missing 11.06.2000, the accused confessed his guilt on the morning of same day got recovered the dead body doubt the case of prosecution. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the same are hereby affirmed. The appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. plastic bag and having buried the same in the fields. He stated that the accused led the police party to the nominated place and got the dead body that the dead body was taken into possession , which was duly attested by PWs Balbir Singh and Hardev Singh as well as by him. The witness was briefly cross on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited examination so as to doubt his veracity or the factum of recovery of dead body of Gurjot Singh at the instance of accused. had been concealed by burying it in the same could not have been noticed by anybody and apparently it was only the accused who knew about the same and since and that too in the presence of a ounds death knell for the accused. the wake of such clinching evidence, this Court can very safely rely upon the other pieces of circumstantial evidence i.e. extra judicial confession and also the ‘last seen’ evidence particularly in view of the fact that there is proximity of time between the occurrence and also the time when the accused confessed his guilt and got the dead body recovered. While the deceased went missing 11.06.2000, the accused confessed his guilt on the morning of 13.06.2000 same day got recovered the dead body, leaving hardly any room to Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the same are hereby affirmed. The appeal He stated that the accused led the police party to the nominated place and got the dead body that the dead body was taken into possession s Balbir Singh and Hardev Singh as well as by him. The witness was briefly cross- licited the factum of recovery of dead body of Gurjot Singh at the instance of accused. it in the same could not have been noticed by anybody and apparently it was only the accused who knew about the same and since and that too in the presence of a In the wake of such clinching evidence, this Court can very safely rely upon the other pieces of circumstantial evidence i.e. extra judicial confession and also ere is proximity of time between the occurrence and also the time when the accused confessed his guilt and got the dead body recovered. While the deceased went missing 13.06.2000 hardly any room to Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of guilt as recorded by the trial Court and the same are hereby affirmed. The appeal is VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-268-DB-2004 (O&M) 25. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. 08.04.2025 Vimal (O&M) ( 15 ) A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary compliance. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document