- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pradeep Singh v. State Of Rajasthan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Pradeep Singh, was tried along with co-accused Vikram Singh for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted both. They filed separate appeals before the High Court of Rajasthan, where a Division Bench confirmed the conviction and sentence of the present appellant. The appellant challenged the Division Bench judgment before the Supreme Court.
According to the prosecution, on 22-6-1992 at about 8 a.m., PW 8 Maniram (Head Constable, Hanumangarh Police Station) found a young person’s dead body near Shiv Mandir Cinema and informed PW 10 Govindram (Sub-Inspector). A case was registered under Section 302 IPC. PW 10 visited the scene, prepared a site plan, arranged photographs, and sent the body for post-mortem. PW 2 Dr Narendra Godara found 24 incised injuries, including puncture injuries to internal organs.
On 23-6-1992 at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant was arrested; the co-accused was arrested the next day. The appellant allegedly made a statement leading to recovery of a concealed knife from a pit, and the pants and shirt allegedly worn at the time were also recovered. Ext. P-40 (FSL report) showed bloodstains on the knife and on the appellant’s pants and shirt.
The case proceeded on circumstantial evidence, as there was no direct evidence; the courts relied on “last seen” evidence, an alleged extra-judicial confession, and recoveries of bloodstained articles.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in the absence of direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence relied upon (last seen together, extra-judicial confession, and recoveries with bloodstains) was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the courts below committed any perversity in appreciating the evidence of the “last seen” witnesses and the extra-judicial confession witnesses.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel seriously challenged PW 5 Gian Chand’s testimony regarding the alleged extra-judicial confession.
- It was contended that PW 5 did not hold any “high position” such that the appellant would seek help from him, and therefore the appellant would not have made a confession to PW 5.
- The appellant alleged false implication.
Prosecution's Case (as reflected in the opinion)
- The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: the appellant being last seen with the deceased, extra-judicial confession to PW 5, and recovery of a bloodstained knife and bloodstained clothing supported by Ext. P-40 (FSL report).
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that there was no direct evidence and evaluated whether the circumstantial evidence was properly relied upon by the Sessions Court and the High Court.
On the “last seen” circumstance, the Court referred to PW 7 Dinesh Kumar, who saw the deceased and the appellant at Sadul Sahar Bus-stand on 21-6-1992, and PW 3 Surinder Kumar, who saw the appellant, the deceased, and the co-accused Vikram on a scooter towards Shiv Mandir Cinema at about 7 to 7.30 p.m. on 21-6-1992. Both witnesses were extensively cross-examined, and both the Sessions Court and High Court relied on their testimony. The Supreme Court stated it did not find any perverse appreciation of this evidence.
Regarding the extra-judicial confession, PW 5 Gian Chand stated that on 22-6-1992 he met the appellant, who appeared sad and told PW 5 that he had killed Subhash with a knife. The Court rejected the appellant’s contention that PW 5’s lack of a “high position” made the confession improbable. The Court further treated PW 5’s account as corroborated by PW 1, who stated that Gian Chand told him about the confession and also stated that when PW 1 questioned the appellant later, the appellant confessed to PW 1 as well.
The Court also noted the recovery of the knife (pursuant to the appellant’s statement), the recovery of pants and shirt, and Ext. P-40 (FSL report) indicating bloodstains on the knife and clothing. The Court observed that the appellant had no apparent explanation for the presence of bloodstains on his pants and shirt, and had only alleged false implication.
On this combined appreciation—last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession with stated corroboration, and incriminating recoveries supported by the FSL report—the Court concluded that the conviction was justified and saw no ground to interfere with the judgments of the courts below.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED: The Supreme Court held that the appellant was rightly convicted by the Sessions Court and that the High Court was justified in confirming the conviction and sentence; no ground for interference was made out.
The direct consequence is that the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC, as confirmed by the High Court, remained in force. The opinion does not indicate any broader implications or the laying down of new precedent beyond the disposition of this appeal.
K.G Balakrishnan, J.— The appellant Pradeep Singh was tried along with another co-accused Vikram Singh, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Both of them were found guilty by the Sessions Court. They filed separate appeals before the High Court of Rajasthan. The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the present appellant Pradeep Singh. The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged before us.
2. The prosecution case is that on 22-6-1992 at about 8 a.m, PW 8 Maniram, a Head Constable attached to Hanumangarh Police Station, saw the dead body of a young person near Shiv Mandir Cinema. He went to Hanumangarh Police Station and gave information to PW 10 Govindram, the Sub-Inspector of Police. On the basis of the information given by PW 8, a case was registered under Section 302 IPC and PW 10 immediately visited the place where the dead body had been found. He prepared the site plan and took photographs of the dead body and they were sent for post-mortem examination. PW 2 Dr Narendra Godara conducted the post-mortem examination and found as many as 24 incised injuries on the dead body. He also found that the internal organs of the deceased were punctured by incised injuries.
3. On 23-6-1992, at about 8.30 p.m, the appellant was arrested and the co-accused was arrested on the next day. The appellant on interrogation gave statement to the effect that he had concealed a knife. PW 10 recovered the knife from a pit and prepared a recovery report. The pants and shirt worn by the appellant were also recovered by the police and Ext. P-40, the FSL report showed the presence of bloodstains on the knife as well as on the pants and shirt of the appellant allegedly worn by him at the time of incident.
4. There was no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant. The court relied on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence on which the court placed reliance was that the appellant was last seen with the deceased and that the appellant had given extra-judicial confession to PW 5 Gian Chand. The recovery of bloodstained knife, pants and shirt was also taken as a serious incriminating evidence against the appellant.
5. PW 7 Dinesh Kumar saw the deceased and the appellant at Sadul Sahar Bus-stand on 21-6-1992. PW 7 was known to the deceased Subhash. Subhash told him that he along with the appellant would be going to Hanumangarh as their friend Vikram had invited them. PW 3 Surinder Kumar is another witness who saw the appellant, the deceased and the co-accused Vikram going on a scooter towards Shiv Mandir Cinema at about 7 to 7.30 p.m on 21-6-1992. Both PW 7 and PW 3 were extensively cross-examined and the Sessions Court as well as the High Court placed reliance on their testimony. We do not think there is any perverse appreciation of their evidence by the courts.
6. As regards the extra-judicial confession, PW 5 Gian Chand stated that he had gone to Ganganagar on 22-6-1992 and he saw the appellant Pradeep Singh. The appellant looked sad and on seeing PW 5, the appellant told him that he had killed Subhash with a knife. PW 5 later returned to Sadul Sahar and told this fact to his brother, Satish Kumar. The counsel for the appellant seriously challenged the evidence of PW 5 and contended that PW 5 was not holding any high position as to render any help to the appellant to save him from the predicament and to such a person, the appellant would not have made any confession. We do not think that such a plea can be accepted. Moreover, the evidence of Gian Chand is further corroborated by PW 1, who stated that Gian Chand had met him and told about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to him. PW 1 also stated that on receiving this information from PW 5, he went to the house of the appellant and he was not found there and on the next morning he again went to the appellant's house and questioned the appellant. At that time, the appellant confessed the guilt to him also. The appellant had no apparent explanation for the presence of bloodstains on his pants and shirt. The appellant only alleged false implication.
7. In our view, the appellant has been rightly convicted by the Sessions Court and the High Court was justified in confirming his conviction and sentence. We do not see any ground to interfere with the judgments of the courts below. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Alert