http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1091 of 1997

PETITIONER: Pradeep  Singh

RESPONDENT: State of Rajasthan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2004

BENCH: K.G.  Balakrishnan  & B.N. Srikrishna.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

K.G. BALAKRISHNAN

       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.

       The prosecution case is that on 22.6.1992 at about 8 A.M., PW-8  Maniram, a head constable attached to the Hanumangarh police station, saw the  dead body  of a young person near Shiv Mandir cinema.  He went to the  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.

       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 shirts worn by the   appellant were  also  recovered by the police and Exh. P-40 the F.S.L. Report  showed the presence of blood stains  on the knife  as well as on the pants and  shirts of the appellant allegedly worn by him at the time of incident.

       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 blood stained knife,    pants and shirts was also  taken as a serious incriminating evidence against the appellant.       PW-7 Dinesh Kumar  saw the deceased and the appellant at the Sadul  Sahar bus stand on 21.6.1992.   PW-7 was known  to deceased, Subhash.        Subhash    told   him that he 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  21.6.1992.    Both PW-7 and PW3 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

       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 blood stains on his  pants and shirts.   The appellant  only alleged    false implication.

       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.