- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Darshan Singh v. State Of Punjab .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, the sole accused, was tried for the murder of his wife, Maya Devi. The prosecution alleged that on 14-6-1980 at approximately 3:00 p.m. near the canal bridge in Village Dholewal, the appellant physically lifted Maya Devi and threw her into the canal, causing her death by asphyxia due to drowning. Strained marital relations, allegedly related to dowry demands, had prompted the deceased to initiate proceedings under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.
Eyewitness PW 4 claimed to have seen the incident and immediately informed PW 5, who in turn notified the deceased’s family. PW 2, the deceased’s brother, searched unsuccessfully for the body that evening and filed a police report the next morning. The body was recovered on 17-6-1980, and the post-mortem confirmed drowning as the cause of death.
The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹500 (with six months’ rigorous imprisonment in default). The High Court dismissed his appeal. The present judgment concerns the appellant’s further appeal, which was likewise dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the testimony of PW 4, corroborated by PWs 2, 3 and 5 and the surrounding circumstances, was sufficient and credible to sustain the appellant’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the appellant’s unexplained conduct and last-seen circumstance could be relied upon to reinforce the prosecution case.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- PW 4’s conduct was “highly unnatural,” making his eyewitness account unreliable.
- It was improbable that the appellant could have physically lifted and thrown the deceased into the canal in the manner described.
- The prosecution case was allegedly based on mere suspicion, and the strained-relations narrative was exaggerated; the appellant denied marital discord despite the Section 125 CrPC proceedings.
Prosecution's Arguments
This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first noted that the very initiation of Section 125 CrPC proceedings evidenced marital discord, undermining the appellant’s denial of strained relations. Assessing PW 4’s testimony, the Court found his presence at the scene adequately explained and his account consistent and independent. PW 4’s narrative was corroborated by:
- PW 5, who confirmed receiving immediate information from PW 4 and relaying it to the deceased’s parents;
- PW 2, who confirmed the timeline of events and the subsequent police report; and
- PW 3, a Panchayat member who saw the appellant collect the deceased’s belongings on the bridge and acknowledged the appellant’s admission that his wife had jumped into the canal.
The Court emphasized the appellant’s failure to explain how and when he parted company with his wife, a fact uniquely within his knowledge. Given the established presence of the appellant with the deceased at the canal bridge and the absence of any alternative explanation, this silence lent additional assurance to PW 4’s account. Both the trial court and the High Court had provided “good reasons” for accepting the prosecution evidence, and the Supreme Court found no basis to interfere with those concurrent findings.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment with fine stand affirmed.
Implications: The decision upholds the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It has an immediate effect on the parties—the appellant will continue to serve his life sentence—but the opinion sets no new legal precedent beyond reaffirming the evidentiary value of corroborated eyewitness testimony and the significance of an accused’s unexplained conduct.
Order
1. The sole accused in the case is the appellant. He was tried for the offence of committing the murder of his wife, Maya Devi, by throwing her into a canal and who died as a result of the asphyxia due to drowning. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 14-6-1980 at about 3 p.m in area of Village Dholewal. The case rested mainly on the evidence of PW 4 corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 and the circumstantial evidence. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs 500, in default, to undergo further RI for six months. The appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the High Court.
2. According to the prosecution the accused had strained relations with his wife, Maya Devi and used to complain about the insufficiency of the dowry. The proceedings under Section 125 CrPC were also instituted by the deceased. On the day of occurrence the accused and Maya Devi were seen grappling at the canal bridge and the accused physically lifted and threw her into the canal as a result of which she got downed. PW 4 who was passing that way saw this incident and according to him the accused thereafter ran away. PW 4 went and informed PW 5 and information was sent to the parents of the deceased. PW 2, brother of the deceased came to the village. A search was made but having failed to find the trace of the deceased, a report was lodged with the police in the next morning at about 10 a.m The dead body of the deceased was recovered on 17-6-1980 and after post-mortem the doctor gave the opinion that the deceased died of asphyxia due to drowning.
3. Shri Khera, learned counsel, contended that the conduct of PW 4 the principal witness in the case, is highly unnatural and it is impossible to believe that the accused could have lifted the deceased and thrown her into the canal as stated by him and that on suspicion the case has been foisted against the accused. It may be mentioned that at that stage the accused denied all the allegations but he admitted that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC were launched but according to him relations between him and his wife were not strained.
4. The fact that the proceedings were initiated under Section 125 CrPC would go to show that the relations between the wife and the husband were strained. Now coming to the evidence of PW 4 he has given his reasons for his presence near the place of occurrence. He deposed that he saw the accused and the deceased grappling and also heard the deceased raising cries for being saved and that he saw the accused physically lifting the deceased and throwing her into the canal. According to PW 4 soon after the occurrence he gave the information to PW 5. His evidence shows that he is an independent witness and there is no reason why his evidence should be discarded. PW 4's evidence is further corroborated by the evidence of PW 5 who deposed that he was informed by PW 4 about the incident and he in turn sent word to the parents of the deceased. PW 2, the brother of the deceased reached the village on the very evening and he deposed that he searched for the body and not having found it he gave the report to the police stating all these facts.
5. It is also the evidence of PW 3, a member of the Panchayat who had found an attache case, a basket, a pair of chappals lying on the bridge and saw the appellant picking up those articles and on his ascertaining the appellant told him that his wife had jumped in the canal. This witness is also an independent witness.
6. In a case of this nature the conduct of the accused is also important. No doubt the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but when the prosecution has established all the circumstances connecting the accused with a crime and in the absence of any explanation it cannot be said that the conduct of the accused has to be ignored and need not be taken into account. The appellant being the husband, it is within his knowledge as to how he parted his company with the deceased. The evidence on record shows that he was in the village. When once it is established that he was with his wife at the place of occurrence and when there is no explanation how he parted his company then it lends assurance to the evidence of PW 4 as to the manner of the occurrence. Both the courts have examined the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 and have given good reasons for accepting the same. The evidence of these witnesses fully incriminates the appellant with the crime and we see no grounds to interfere.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
Alert