China Kumar Pandit Vs State of Punjab

China Ku m ar Pandit assails judgment da t ed 19.01.2004 passed by lear n ed Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherein the trial Court while holding him guilty of having co m mitted offence under Section 302, sentenced him to unde r go rigorous i m prisonment for life and impose d a fine amounting to Rs.10,000/ - .

¶13

The matter arises out of FIR No.200 dat e d 11.06.2000 registered at Pol i ce Station Sa d ar, Ludhiana, under Sections 3 0 2, 364, 201 IPC at the instance of Hardev Sin g h. The translated gist of Hard e v Singh’s statement (Ex.PW-2/ A ) leading to l o dging of FIR reads as under:

¶14

“I a m an agriculturist and have two sons namely Bhagwant Singh and Ha r jit Sing h . We all reside together in the s a me house. My son Harjit Singh h as two d aughters and a son namely Gurjo t Singh aged about 7 ½ years, wh o is study i ng in Class I in St. Josephs Scho o l, Dugri Road, Dhandra. Presen t ly, there is vacation in school and as such , Gurjot Singh remains in the house.

¶15

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶17

( 2 )

¶18

Toda y at about 10.30 AM, when I al o ngwith my grand-son Gurjot Si n gh retur n ed from Gurdwara after payin g obeisance, my grand-son, gra n d- daug h ters and daughter’s son were alr e ady watching T.V. in the verand a h. Gurj o t Singh also started watching T .V. alongwith them. Howe v er, sudd e nly he went towards the main gat e . After about half an hour, when he (Gurj o t Singh) was not found, I alon g with other members of the vill a ge starte d searching for him. Some other villagers and relatives also searc h ed for h i m in the village as well as in th e neighbouring locality and villages. Later in the evening, my son Harji t Singh lodged a report regard i ng disap p earance of my grand-son pursua n t to which you (ASI Jagdish Sin g h) visite d my house. We have not been able to trace my grand-son Gu rj ot Sing h so far. We suspect that my grand-son Gurjot Singh has b e en kidn a pped by some unknown person/p e rsons with an intention to kill h i m. Lega l action be taken.”

¶19

ASI Jagdis h Singh (PW-10), after recording the aforesaid statement, sent t he same to the Police Station for lodging of FI R . The matter was investigated by the police d uring the course of which state m ents of Paramjit Kaur, Harch a nd Singh and J aswant Singh were recorded o n 12.06.2000. On the next day i .e. on 13.06.2 0 00, investigation was taken o ver by Inspector Maninder B e di (PW-14).

¶20

It is the c a se of prosecution that PW-3 H archand Singh in his statem e nt mentioned t hat he had seen Gurjot Singh i n the company of accused at ab o ut 10.30 AM o n 11.06.2000. It is further the c ase of prosecution that Bhagw a nt Singh (P W -11) disclosed that he had re c eived a telephone call from an unknown c a ller on 12.06.2000 demanding a ransom of Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of safe return of Gurjot Singh, who was m issing. It is further the case of prosecutio n that Jaswant Singh (PW-5) h a d seen the accused on the ni g ht intervening 11/12.06.2000 at about 12.30 AM (mid night) while carryin g a heavy gun n y bag on his left shoulder. It is f urther the case of prosecution t h at

¶21

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶23

( 3 )

¶24

the accuse d was produced before police o n 13.06.2000 by Balbir Singh, e x- Sarpanch a nd that the accused had suffe r ed a disclosure statement bef o re Balbir Sin g h, ex-Sarpanch (PW-9) confes s ing his guilt of having murde r ed Gurjot Sin g h. As per prosecution, acc u sed allegedly made a disclos u re statement t o the effect that after murderin g Gurjot Singh, he had buried h is dead body in the fields belonging to Jagir Singh in the area of vill a ge Dhandra. P ursuant to the said disclosure statement, the dead body of Gur j ot was exhu m ed in the presence of Ram Sin g h, Tehsildar. Rough site plan of the place o f recovery of dead body was pr e pared. Inquest proceedings w e re conducted. Post-mortem examination was g ot conducted on the dead body of Gurjot Sin g h. It is further the case o f prosecution that on 16.06.20 0 0, accused su f fered another disclosure state m ent as regards concealment o f a pair of slip p ers of Gurjot Singh and a spad e , which he got recovered from t he nominated places and the same were taken into possession vide recov e ry memo Ex. P W-10/E.

¶25

Upon con c lusion of investigation, challa n was presented against accu s ed China Ku m ar Pandit on 07.09.2000 i n the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, who co m mitted the case to the Court of Sessions, w here charges were framed aga i nst accused China Kumar Pan d it for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 30.10.2000 to which he pleaded no t guilty and claimed trial.

¶26

The prosec u tion in order to establish its c a se examined as many as 14 P W s. The gist of t heir testimonies is being briefl y referred to herein under:-

¶27

PW-1 Sh. Ram Singh, Tehsildar, Ludhia n a, stated that he was deputed by the Additional District Magistrate, L udhiana to associate himself w i th

¶28

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶30

( 4 )

¶31

the investigation of the present c ase and that he had accordin g ly ass o ciated with the police party he a ded by Inspector Maninder Bedi, SH O , P.S.Sadar, Ludhiana. He st a ted that the accused, who was in cus t ody, made a confessional sta t ement to the effect that he h ad mu r dered Gurjot Singh and had co n cealed his dead body in the fie l ds on t he road leading to Alamgir and that the dead body had been put in a p l astic bag and had been buried b y digging a pit and that he co u ld get the same recovered. He stated t hat pursuant to said statement, t he acc u sed led the police party to the disclosed place and got recove r ed the dead body in his presence from a pit dug by the accused himsel f .

¶32

PW-2 Ha r dev Singh, who is the complai n ant in the present case, stated in tun e with the statement which he h ad made to the police on the basis of w hich FIR had been lodged. He further stated that the accused h ad ma d e a disclosure statement regard i ng murder of his grand-son and as reg a rds concealment of his dead bo d y and had got the same recove r ed by digging out the pit in his pres e nce as well as in the presence of Ra m Singh and Balbir Singh.

¶33

PW-3 Ha r chand Singh, one of the n eighbourers of Hardev Singh (co m plainant), stated that on 11.06 . 2000 at about 10.30 AM, when he rea c hed near the house of Har d ev Singh while returning fr o m Al a mgir Gurdwara after paying obeisance, he saw the accu s ed hol d ing Gurjot Singh’s arm and t aking him inside the cattle s h ed bel o nging to Hardev Singh. He sta t ed that later he came to know t h at Gu r jot Singh was missing from his house.

¶34

PW-4 Gu r dip Singh stated that on 13.06. 2 000 at about 5.00 PM, the pol i ce ha d got recovered the dead body o f Gurjot Singh from his fields at the instance of accused China Kum a r Pandit.

¶35

PW-5 Jas w ant Singh stated that he knew a ccused China Kumar Pandit, who wa s working as a labourer in their v illage since the last 5/6 years and tha t on the night intervening 11 / 12.06.2000 at about 12.30 ( m id nig h t), when he was returning t o his house from his fields a ft er

¶36

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶38

( 5 )

¶39

irri g ating his paddy crop, he saw a ccused China Kumar coming o ut of c attle shed of Hardev Singh wh i le carrying a heavy gunny bag on his left shoulder and was also ca r rying a kahi (spade) on his ri g ht shoulder and when he enquired f r om accused as to where he w as pro c eeding to, he (accused) seeme d perplexed and stated that he w as goi n g to the tubewell.

¶40

PW-6 Ha r jit Singh, father of Gurjot Sing h (deceased), stated with regard to lod g ing of DDR on 11.06.2000 r e garding disappearance of his son an d proved the same as Ex.PW-6/A. He also stated with regard to rec o very of golden karra at th e instance of accused from t he dis c losed place pursuant to the dis c losure statement made by accu s ed on 1 8.06.2000.

¶41

PW-7 Dr. Gurcharan Singh, Medical Of fi cer, stated that on 14.06.2000, he alo n gwith Dr. Harjap Singh had c o nducted post-mortem examination on t he dead body of Gurjot Singh . While proving the post-mort e m rep o rt as Ex.PW-2/E, he stated that the cause of death was due to asp h yxia.

¶42

PW-8 HC Surinder Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered into evide n ce his affidavit Ex.PW-8/A, wherein he deposed that he had delive r ed the special reports to the Illaqa M a gistrate and also to SSP and ot h er hig h er officers on 11.06.2000.

¶43

PW-9 Bal b ir Singh stated that he is ex- S arpanch of the village and kno w s the accused, who had come to h is house in village Dhandra on 13. 0 6.2000 at about 10.30 AM. H e stated that the accused used to res i de in the cattle shed of Har d ev Singh of his village and he dis c losed to him that on account o f greed of money, he had ta k en alo n g Gurjot Singh with him on 11.06.2000 so as to extract mo n ey an d had later killed him by stra n gulating him from his neck a nd the r eafter buried his dead body in t h e fields of Jagir Singh. He sta t ed tha t on the asking of the accused, h e produced him before the pol i ce an d that upon interrogation of t h e accused by the police in h is

¶44

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶45

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶46

( 6 )

¶47

pre s ence and also in the presen c e of Ram Singh, Tehsildar, t he acc u sed disclosed that he had burie d the dead body of Gurjot Singh in the fields by putting the dead body in a gunny bag. He further sta t ed tha t the accused led them to the n ominated place and got the d e ad bo d y of Gurjot Singh recovered by digging a pit.

¶48

PW-10 AS I Jagdish Singh stated that a r eport regarding disappearance of Gu r jot Singh had been lodged in the police station on 11.06.2000 a nd he h ad gone to the village Dhandr a and had recorded the stateme n ts of H ardev Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Harchand Singh and Jaswant Sin g h. He further stated that the accus e d was interrogated by Inspec t or Ma n inder Bedi on 16.06.2000 i n his presence as well as in t he pre s ence of Jagjit Singh and tha t in his disclosure statement, t he acc u sed had disclosed that he had c o ncealed a kassi (spade) and a pair of s lippers of the deceased in the f odder room of Hardev Singh and tha t pursuant to the same, the a c cused got the aforesaid artic l es rec o vered. He further stated that on 18.06.2000, SI Dalip Ku m ar Be d i interrogated the accused duri n g the course of which the accu s ed dis c losed that he had concealed a gold bangle in his room and t h at pur s uant to the same, he got the go l d bangle recovered.

¶49

PW-11 Bh a gwant Singh stated that the deceased Gurjot Singh was h is ne p hew and that on 12.06.2000, t h ey had received a telephone call fro m an unknown person, who de m anded a ransom of Rs.15 lakhs in lie u of ensuring safety of Gurjot Si n gh. He stated that the matter w as dis c ussed in the family and they waited for another call from t he cal l er. He further stated that he su s pected that the telephone call h ad been made by China Kumar Pandi t , who was working in their ca t tle she d , as he was also missing from t h e same day itself.

¶50

PW-12 SI D alip Kumar stated that on 18. 0 6.2000, he was entrusted with t he inv e stigation of the present case a n d had interrogated the accused in the presence of complainant durin g the course of which the accu s ed suf f ered a disclosure statement r egarding concealment of a g o ld ba n gle and pursuant thereto the a c cused led the police party to t he

¶51

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶53

( 7 )

¶54

no m inated place and got the same recovered, which was taken i n to possession vide recovery memo Ex . PW-6/D.

¶55

PW-13 M H C Hardev Singh stated that h e was posted as MHC at Pol i ce Sta t ion Sadar, Ludhiana on 11.06. 2 000. He had brought the relev a nt D D R Register and proved copy o f DDR No.13 dated 11.06.2000 as Ex. P W-6/A.

¶56

PW-14 Ins p ector Maninder Bedi, who h a d conducted substantial part of inv e stigation of the present case, s t ated with regard to the same. H e spe c ifically stated regarding Ba l bir Singh, ex-Sarpanch having pro d uced the accused and also as r e gards the extra judicial confession ma d e by accused before Balbir Si n gh. He further stated with reg a rd to t h e calling of the Executive Ma g istrate Shri Ram Singh, Tehsil d ar an d in whose presence, the accuse d had got the dead body of Gur j ot Sin g h (deceased) recovered. H e also stated with regard to t he int e rrogation of accused on 16.06. 2 000 during the course of which he ma d e disclosure statement regardi n g concealment of pair of slipp e rs of t he deceased and also a spad e , which he got recovered while lea d ing the police party to the nominated place.

¶57

Upon clos u re of the prosecution evidenc e , statement of the accused Ch i na Kumar Pa n dit was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the entire case of prosecution in t o to and pleaded false implicati o n. The accuse d , however, did not lead any evi d ence in his defence. The accu s ed after tende r ing in evidence a certified cop y of the statement of Balbir Si n gh closed his d efence evidence.

¶58

The learne d trial Court, upon marshallin g the evidence brought on reco r d, held that th e charges framed against the ac c used for offence punishable un d er Section 30 2 stood duly proved and accordi n gly sentenced him vide impug n ed judgment a s mentioned above.

¶59

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶60

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶61

( 8 )

¶62

Learned counsel for the appellant, while a ssailing the impugned judgme n t, submitted t h at it is a case of blind murder based on circumstantial evide n ce and that h e has been falsely implicated i n the present case on the basis of maneuvere d evidence. It has been submi t ted that the alleged extra judicial confession does not inspire confidence a n d in any case is a weak type of evidence a n d in the absence of any other c o rroborative piece of evidence, t he alleged fac t um of recovery of dead body a l legedly at the instance of accu s ed is insuffici e nt to hold him guilty. Learn e d counsel further submitted t h at even the a l leged ‘last seen’ evidence in t he shape of statements of P W -3 Harchand S ingh and PW-5 Jaswant Singh is shaky and as such, there being several chi n ks in the case of prosecution, t h e impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

¶63

Opposing t h e appeal, learned State counse l submitted that it is a case wh e re the circum s tantial evidence led by the pr o secution forms a complete ch a in and that si n ce it is a case where the ac c used himself got the dead body recovered, w hich he had buried in the fiel d s and that too in the presence o f a Executive M agistrate, his complicity is cle a rly evident.

¶64

We have considered rival submissions ad d ressed before this Court and w i th the assistance of learned counsel have also p erused the record of the case.

¶65

Although t h e factum of homicidal death o f the deceased Gurjot Singh is n ot seriously d i sputed, but it is apposite to firs t of all briefly refer to the medi c al evidence i n this regard. The prosecution h as examined PW-7 Dr. Gurcha r an m

¶66

Singh, wh o alongwith Dr. Harjap Sin g h had conducted post-mort e examinatio n on the dead body of Gurjot Si n gh on 14.06.2000. While proving

¶67

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶68

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶69

( 9 )

¶70

the post-m o rtem report as Ex.PW-2/E, P W -7 categorically stated that t he cause of de a th was due to asphyxia. His o b servations as recorded in the postmortem re p ort are reproduced herein under :

¶71

“It w a s a dead body of a male child m o derately built and nourished wear i ng T-shi r t and half pant, body was smeared with mud, body was putrefied a nd deco m posed. Peeling of skin was pre s ent at places with blisters format i on here a nd there. Penis and scrotoum we r e swollen, maggots were crawling all over t he body. Face was disfigured. N ails were not detachable. Scalp h air were not present. Tongue was protru d ing out and clinched in teeth. Te e th were detachable. Sutures of skull we r e looses and brain liquefied. Th e re was c ontusion 1” x ¼” present on bot h sides of the neck. On explorat i on unde r lying muscles and tissues were ec c hymosed. Hyoid bone was press e d. Both lungs were liquefied. Larynx an d trachea congested. Other visce r as were congested.”

¶72

This witness was not cross-examined o n behalf of the accused despite opportunit y given to him. There is nothin g so as to either doubt his verac i ty or his opin i on. As such, the factum of death being a homicidal death is d u ly established .

¶73

Admittedly, it is a case where the occurre n ce was not witnessed by anybody and the pro s ecution mainly banks upon the following pieces of circumstan t ial evidence:

¶74

(i) ‘l a st seen’ evidence in the shape of testimonies of PW-3 Harchand Singh and PW-5 Jaswant Singh;

¶75

(ii) e x tra judicial confession made b y the accused before PW-9 Bal b ir Singh, ex-Sarpanch;

¶76

(iii) re c overy of dead body at the insta n ce of the accused.

¶77

‘Last seen’ evidence – It is the case of p r osecution that Gurjot Singh w e nt missing fr o m his house on the morni n g on 11.06.2000, as has b e en

¶78

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶79

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶80

( 10 )

¶81

specificall y stated by Hardev Singh (complainant) in the FIR and also while in the witn e ss-box. The prosecution has e x amined PW-3 Harchand Singh, a resident of the same village, who stated t h at on 11.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM, when he was returning from Gurdwa r a and when he was near the ho u se of Hardev Singh, he saw the accused alo n gwith Gurjot Singh and both of them were going inside the cattle shed of H ardev Singh and that it was la t er that he ca m e to know that Gurjot Singh wa s missing.

¶82

Learned co u nsel for the appellant in an att e mpt to assail the credibility of t he said witness i.e. PW-3 has referred to the following extract from his cro s s- examinatio n :

¶83

“… … …..I came to know about the mis s ing of Gurjot Singh on the next d a y. I was not present on the alleged day of missing as I was away to Chakka r in Jagra o n. I did not state this fact to the p olice in my statement. China Pa n dit was a rrested on 13.06.2000. China Pandit was not in the village on 11/1 2 .06.2000. Dog squad was not b rought by the police in our vill a ge Dhan d ra. I came to know about mi s sing of Gurjot Singh at 3 P.M. on 12.06.2000. I did not go to the police station on 12.06.2000.”

¶84

Learned co u nsel submitted that since the w itness (PW-3) has stated that he was not pr e sent in the village on the day w hen Gurjot Singh went missi n g, therefore, t h e said fact would demolish th e stand of the prosecution that he had seen th e accused going alongwith Gurj o t Singh (deceased).

¶85

This Court, however, finds that the statem e nt of the witness to the effect t h at he was not in the village on said day can b e interpreted either way inasm u ch as it can be interpreted to mean that he mig h t have gone out during the cou r se of the day and may have been present in the morning at about 10.30 A M ,

¶86

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶87

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶88

( 11 )

¶89

when he h a d seen the accused. He had no reason to suspect anything foul at that stage i n asmuch as the accused was re s iding in the cattle shed of Har d ev Singh and u sed to work as labourer in the v i llage.

¶90

The other p iece of ‘last seen’ is in the sh a pe of PW-5 Jaswant Singh, who stated that on the night intervening 11/1 2 .06.2000, when he was returning home from his fields after irrigating paddy crop, he saw the accused at ab o ut 12.30 AM (mid night) who was coming o u t of cattle shed of Hardev Si n gh and that th e accused at that time was carr y ing a heavy gunny bag on his left shoulder a n d was also carrying a kahi (spa d e) on his right shoulder and upon being ques t ioned, he was rather perplexed a nd stated that he was going to t he tubewell. W hile the said statement could not be shattered during his cro s s- examinatio n , but it is well settled that the ‘last seen’ evidence and its va l ue has to be a s sessed in the context of other e v idence led by the prosecution.

¶91

Extra judic i al confession – As per the cas e of prosecution, the accused w e nt to the house of PW-9 Balbir Singh, ex - Sarpanch at village Dhandra on 13.06.2000 at about 10.30 AM and confes s ed his guilt and that PW-9 Bal b ir Singh prod u ced him before the police. H e further stated that the police h ad called Shri Ram Singh, Executive Magi s trate and in whose presence t he accused got the dead body of Gurjot Si n gh recovered from the fields by digging a p i t and that the dead body had be e n kept in a gunny bag. He furt h er stated that h e had attested the recovery m e mo pertaining to the recovery of dead body alongwith Shri Ram Singh, T e hsildar. The witness was brie f ly cross-exam i ned, but nothing substantial co u ld be elicited during the course of his cross-e x amination so as to either do u bt his veracity or his credibili t y.

¶92

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶93

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶94

( 12 )

¶95

Since the said witness was an ex-Sarpanc h of the village, he can surely be said to be a respectable of the area and a s such, there is nothing unnatu r al with regar d to the accused having approa c hed PW-9 Balbir Singh so as to confess his guilty.

¶96

As in the c a se of ‘last seen’ evidence, eve n the extra judicial confession i s a piece of e v idence, the value of which has to be collectively assessed in t he context of other evidence brought on r e cord. In the present case, t he clinching p iece of evidence relied upon b y the prosecution is a factum of recovery o f dead body at the instance of accused himself. In this cont e xt reference m ay be made to the judgment o f Hon’ble Apex Court in Aftab Ahmad Anasari Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 , wher e in while cons i dering evidentiary value of a n extra-judicial confession, it h as been held as under:

¶97

“… … …………..Though extra judicial c onfession is considered to be a w e ak piece of evidence by the courts, this Co u rt finds that there is neither any r u le of la w nor of prudence that the evidenc e furnishing extra judicial confess i on cann o t be relied upon unless corrobora t ed by some other credible eviden c e. The e vidence relating to extra judicial confession can be acted upon if t he evide n ce about extra judicial confessio n comes from the mouth of a witn e ss who a ppears to be unbiased and in resp e ct of whom even remotely nothin g is brou g ht out which may tend to indic a te that he may have a motive f or attrib u ting an untruthful statement to t h e accused. In State of U.P. vs. M . K. Anth o ny AIR 1985 SC 48, this Court, while explaining the law relating to extra judicial confession, ruled that if the word spoken by the witness a re clear, unambiguous and unmistakable o ne showing that the accused is t he perpetrator of the crime and nothing i s omitted by the witness which m ay milit a te against it, then after subjecti n g the evidence of the witness t o a rigor o us test on the touchstone of cre d ibility, the extra judicial confess i on can b e accepted and can be the basis of a conviction. According to t h is

¶98

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶99

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶100

( 13 )

¶101

Cour t , in such a situation, to go in se a rch of corroboration itself tends to cause a shadow of doubt over the ev i dence and if the evidence of e x tra judic i al confession is reliable, trustwort h y and beyond reproaching, the sa m e can b e relied upon and a conviction c a n be founded thereon. Here, in t h is case, it is proved by the prosecution th a t PW5, Anand Swaroop was not on inimi c al terms with the appellant at al l . After subjecting his evidence t o a rigor o us test on the touchstone of cr e dibility, this Court finds that e x tra judic i al confession referred to by th e witness is reliable and is rig h tly acce p ted by the Trial Court and the Hig h Court.”

¶102

Recovery o f dead body – The clinching pi e ce of evidence in the present c a se is the factu m of recovery of dead body at the instance of none else, but t he accused, w h ich was got recovered on the s a me very day when he surrende r ed before the p olice on 13.06.2000. As per t h e case of prosecution, the accu s ed went to th e house of PW-9 Balbir Singh and confessed his guilt and w ho produced t h e accused before the police th e same very day where he mad e a disclosure s tatement with regard to the co n cealment of dead body of Gur j ot Singh in the fields of Jagir Singh. The s a id disclosure statement was m a de before PW - 14 Inspector Maninder Bedi i n the presence of Sh. Ram Sin g h, Tehsildar. It is the case of prosecution t h at pursuant to the said disclos u re statement, t he accused led the police party t o the nominated place and got t he dead body recovered by digging a pit. P W-1 Ram Singh, who had b e en called by t h e police before the body was exhumed, stated specifically w i th regard to t h e factum of recovery of dead b o dy by the accused in his presen c e. He stated t h at on 13.06.2000, he had speci f ically been deputed by Additio n al District M a gistrate to associate himself w ith the investigation of the ca s e, which was being conducted by a police pa r ty headed by Inspector Manin d er Bedi. He stated that the accused had m a de a confessional statement w i th regard to his having murdered Gurjot Sing h and having put his dead body i n a VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶103

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶104

( 14 )

¶105

plastic bag and having buried the same i n the fields. He stated that t he accused le d the police party to the nomin a ted place and got the dead body recovered b y digging a pit and that the de a d body was taken into possession vide recov e ry memo Ex.PW-1/C, which w as duly attested by PWs Bal b ir Singh and H ardev Singh as well as by hi m . The witness was briefly cro s s- examined o n behalf of the accused, but n o thing substantial could be elici t ed during the c ourse of his cross-examination so as to doubt his veracity or t he factum of r e covery of dead body of Gurjot S ingh at the instance of accused .

¶106

Since it is a case where the dead body ha d been concealed by burying it in ground by d igging a pit, the same could n ot have been noticed by anybody and appare n tly it was only the accused w h o knew about the same and si n ce the accuse d had got the same recovered a nd that too in the presence o f a Magistrate, the said factum virtually soun d s death knell for the accused. In the wake o f such clinching evidence, this C ourt can very safely rely upon t he other piece s of circumstantial evidence i.e. extra judicial confession and a l so the ‘last se e n’ evidence particularly in vie w of the fact that there is proxim i ty of time bet w een the occurrence and also th e time when the accused confes s ed his guilt an d got the dead body recovered. While the deceased went missing on 11.06.2 0 00, the accused confessed his g uilt on the morning of 13.06.2000 and on the s ame day got recovered the dea d body, leaving hardly any room to doubt the c a se of prosecution.

¶107

Consequen t ly, we do not find any infir m ity in the findings of guilt as recorded b y the trial Court and the same a r e hereby affirmed. The appeal is sans merit a nd is hereby dismissed.

¶108

VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶109

CRA-D-268-DB-2004 ( O&M)

¶110

( 15 )

¶111