{"id":122814,"date":"2009-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-16T12:36:12","modified_gmt":"2018-03-16T07:06:12","slug":"satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                       Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                         -1-\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                                               Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007\n\n                                DATE OF DECISION: September 24, 2009\n\nSATISH KUMAR S\/O JAILA RAM                               ...APPELLANT\n\n                                  VERSUS\n\nSTATE OF PUNJAB                                          ...RESPONDENT\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.\n       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL.\n\nPRESENT: MR. PREMJIT SINGH HUNDAL,\n         ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT.\n         MRS. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB.\n\n\nASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The appellant Satish Kumar has filed this appeal against the<\/p>\n
judgement and order of sentence dated 29.9.2006, whereby, he has been<\/p>\n
convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6<\/p>\n
months under Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for<\/p>\n
10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000\/- in default of payment of further<\/p>\n
undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 392 IPC. He was further sentenced<\/p>\n
to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000\/- and in default of<\/p>\n
payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 6 months under Section 201 IPC. All<\/p>\n
the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
            The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 28.10.2000,<\/p>\n
Inspector Jasdeep Singh (PW20) alongwith ASI Sukhvir Singh, ASI Kewal<\/p>\n
Singh, Constable Jasvir Singh, Constable Resham Singh and SPO Sukhvir<\/p>\n
Singh was present at Bus Stand Nurmahal, Phillaur where complainant<\/p>\n
Gurmail Singh son of Hari Singh came and got recorded his statement to the
\n                         Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
effect that he is resident of village Haripur Khalsa, Police Station Phillaur<\/p>\n
and is an agriculturist by profession. On 28.10.2000, he had gone to look<\/p>\n
after his fields situated near the brick kiln of village Haripur. At about 8.30<\/p>\n
a.m. when he reached near his Mustard crop which is situated near the<\/p>\n
metalled road, he saw a dead body of a man aged about 25-26 years lying<\/p>\n
near the butt and his clothes were smeared with blood. It appeared that<\/p>\n
some unknown persons with sharp edged weapons had killed that man and<\/p>\n
had thrown him in his fields. Further the complainant also got recorded in<\/p>\n
his statement that he left the dead body in the custody of Sukhdev Singh S\/o<\/p>\n
Piara Singh and then he proceeded to report the matter. On the basis of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid statement (Ex.PDD) recorded on 28.10.2000 at 9.30 a.m., formal<\/p>\n
FIR (Ex.PDD\/3) under Section 302\/201 IPC was recorded by ASI<\/p>\n
Lachhman Dass at 9.40 a.m.<\/p>\n
              Thereafter, Inspector Jasdeep Singh alongwith other Police<\/p>\n
party went to the spot and near the dead body one empty liquor bottle, one<\/p>\n
glass and a purse alongwith driving licence of Harjit Singh were found there<\/p>\n
and the same were taken into possession vide separate recovery memos. He<\/p>\n
also prepared the site plan. The dead body was sent for post mortem<\/p>\n
examination.\n<\/p>\n
              In order to connect the accused with the commission of the<\/p>\n
crime, the     investigating officer recorded the statements of Sohan Lal<\/p>\n
Chauhan, Santokh Singh S\/o Chanan Singh and Ravinder Singh. Ravinder<\/p>\n
Singh is     the witness who had last seen the deceased in the company of the<\/p>\n
accused and he also stated that on 28.10.2000, he came to know that<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh and Satish had fled away with Tata Sumo bearing No.PB01-<\/p>\n
2362 after committing murder of Harjit Singh with sharp edged weapon and
\n                          Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                     -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
threw his dead body. Santokh Singh is also the witness of last seen. The<\/p>\n
extra judicial confession was made before PW18 Sohan Lal Chauhan. On<\/p>\n
5.11.2000, the accused were seen roaming in the Tata Sumo on the<\/p>\n
Ferozepur-Ludhiana road in suspicious circumstances and said Tata Sumo<\/p>\n
was taken into possession by the Police of Police Station Sarabha Nagar,<\/p>\n
Ludhiana. On 10.2.2001, accused Satish Kumar was arrested on the<\/p>\n
identification of Santokh Singh and his blood stained clothes were taken<\/p>\n
into possession. On 11.2.2001, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, the<\/p>\n
accused Satish got recovered the knife allegedly used for committing the<\/p>\n
offence and the same was taken into possession. After completion of all the<\/p>\n
necessary formalities, challan against the accused was presented under<\/p>\n
Section 302, 392, 201 IPC. Charge against the accused Kuldeep and Satish<\/p>\n
was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.         It is<\/p>\n
pertinent to mention here that the accused Kuldeep expired during the<\/p>\n
pendency of the trial.\n<\/p>\n
             To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as<\/p>\n
20 witnesses. PW1 Dr. Jai Kishan, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phillaur<\/p>\n
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Harjit Singh on 28.10.2000 and<\/p>\n
found 28 incised and stabbed injuries on the dead body of Harjit Singh. He<\/p>\n
has opined that the cause of death in this case was due to shock and<\/p>\n
haemorrhage due to the injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the<\/p>\n
ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were found to ante mortem. PW2<\/p>\n
Dr. Mukesh Walia, stated that Harjit Singh was engaged as driver on his<\/p>\n
vehicle Tata Sumo No.PB01-2362. PW3 Santokh Singh stated that on<\/p>\n
dated 5.11.2000 he had seen Satish and Kuldeep Singh in Tata Sumo. At<\/p>\n
that time Kuldeep Singh was driving the vehicle and Satish Kumar was
\n                         Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
sitting on the seat. He further that stated that he learnt later on that driver of<\/p>\n
that vehicle had been murdered. PW4 Constable Desu Dass proved the<\/p>\n
mechanical report of Tata Sumo Ex.PF. PW5 Sh. A.S. Grewal, Addl. Chief<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, stated that Satish Kumar accused was<\/p>\n
produced before him on 14.02.2001 and an application Ex.PG for taking his<\/p>\n
specimen finger prints was made on which Satish Kumar has no objection.<\/p>\n
He proved the statement of Satish Kumar (Ex.PG\/1). He further stated that<\/p>\n
application was Ex.PH for taking the finger prints of Kuldeep Singh was<\/p>\n
also made and regarding no objection statement of Kuldeep Singh Ex.PH\/1<\/p>\n
was recorded. He also proved the specimen finger prints of the accused.<\/p>\n
PW6 Inspector Bal Krishan, Finger Prints Expert, Finger Prints Bureau,<\/p>\n
Phillaur proved his report Ex.PL. PW7 Virender Singh, Sr. Clerk of the<\/p>\n
office of State Transport Commissioner, Chandigarh proved the registration<\/p>\n
certificate of vehicle No.PB01-2362 Ex.P3. PW8 Mangat Rai, Jr. Asstt. Of<\/p>\n
the office of DTO Jalandhar proved the driving licence of Harjit Singh<\/p>\n
Ex.P5. PW9 Kirpal Singh Draftsman, proved the scaled site plan Ex.PN.<\/p>\n
PW10 Parvinder Singh who is the brother of Harjit Singh stated that on<\/p>\n
28.10.2000, he came to know that Harjit Singh had been killed by Satish<\/p>\n
Kumar and Kuldeep Singh and thereafter they fled away with Tata Sumo.<\/p>\n
PW11 H.C. Jaswinder Singh, PW15 H.C. Jasbir Singh, PW16 Constable<\/p>\n
Harbans Singh and PW17 Constable Mohan Singh proved their affidavit<\/p>\n
Ex.PO, Ex.PAA, ExPBB, Ex.PCC respectively. PW12 ASI Paramjit Singh<\/p>\n
interrogated Kuldeep Singh on 8.2.2001 and he confessed his guilt before<\/p>\n
the ASI. PW13 ASI Sukhvir Singh has stated about the recording of the<\/p>\n
statement of Gurmail Singh complainant and recovery of bottle, glass and<\/p>\n
purse. PW14 H.C. Pawan Kumar stated regarding handing over Tata Sumo
\n                        Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
to ASI Sukhvir Singh on 20.12.2000 vide memo Ex.PR. PW18 Sohan<\/p>\n
Singh Chauhan stated about the extra judicial confession to have been made<\/p>\n
by the accused on 27.11.2000. PW19 ASI Lachhman Dass has given the<\/p>\n
details of investigation conducted by Inspector Jasdeep Singh. PW20 DSP<\/p>\n
Jasdeep Singh who is the investigating officer has given the details of<\/p>\n
investigation conducted in this case.\n<\/p>\n
            On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused<\/p>\n
was recorded. The accused-appellant stated that he had a quarrel with<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh due to which he got him falsely implicated in this case.<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the entire<\/p>\n
case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the onus was on the<\/p>\n
prosecution to prove that the chain of events was complete. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the last seen evidence<\/p>\n
beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the occurrence is alleged to<\/p>\n
have taken place on 28.10.2000, whereas the statement of Ravinder Singh<\/p>\n
PW10 who was the younger brother of the deceased was recorded on<\/p>\n
30.12.2000. According to PW10 Ravinder Singh, the accused Satish Kumar<\/p>\n
alongwith the co-accused Kuldeep (deceased) had come to their house on<\/p>\n
27.10.2000, at about 2.00 p.m. and had hired the Tata Sumo for a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.800\/-. Thereafter, they went with his brother Harjit Singh in the Tata<\/p>\n
Sumo. The dead body of Harjit Singh was found on 28.10.2000, lying in<\/p>\n
the area of village Haripur Khalsa on a link road behind Sarkanda. It is<\/p>\n
contended that the deceased might have met various other persons between<\/p>\n
2.00 p.m. on 27.10.2000 upto the next date, i.e. on 28.10.2000 and as a lot<\/p>\n
of time had elapsed when the accused and the deceased were last seen<\/p>\n
together, hence it cannot be said with certainty that the deceased had not
\n                        Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
met any other person after 2.00 p.m. on 27.10.2000, till his death on the next<\/p>\n
day. It is thus contended that the last seen evidence led by the prosecution<\/p>\n
does not establish that the accused had committed the murder of deceased<\/p>\n
Harjit Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel has further argued that the prosecution has<\/p>\n
placed reliance on the testimony of PW3 Santokh Singh who had earlier<\/p>\n
stated before the Police that he had seen the accused driving in the Tata<\/p>\n
Sumo on Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana on 5.11.2000. However, this witness<\/p>\n
was declared hostile and hence this chain of circumstance has also not been<\/p>\n
proved by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
            Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that an empty<\/p>\n
glass bottle and a glass tumbler were recovered from near the dead body of<\/p>\n
Harjit Singh. The right hand thumb impression of both the accused Kuldeep<\/p>\n
and Satish Kumar were taken and were sent to the finger prints expert for<\/p>\n
examination. PW6 Inspector Bal Krishan, Finger Prints Expert, Finger<\/p>\n
Prints Bureau, Phillaur has stated that right thumb impression of accused<\/p>\n
Kuldeep were found on the empty glass bottle and glass tumbler, but no<\/p>\n
thumb impression of the appellant Satish were found. On the basis of the<\/p>\n
above, learned counsel submits that the finger prints of the accused-<\/p>\n
appellant have not been found on the empty glass bottle and glass tumbler<\/p>\n
and therefore, it would be unsafe to convict him.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel has further argued that the extra judicial<\/p>\n
confession made by the accused before PW18 Sohan Lal Chauhan is no<\/p>\n
confession in the eyes of law as the occurrence is alleged to have taken<\/p>\n
place on 28.10.2000, whereas the confession is stated to have been made on<\/p>\n
25.11.2000. It has been submitted that extra judicial confession is a weak
\n                          Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                      -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
type of evidence and the same could not be relied upon as the accused<\/p>\n
would not make an extra judicial confession to a person who was not very<\/p>\n
well known to them. Learned counsel further submits that PW18 Sohan Lal<\/p>\n
Chauhan had never produced the accused before the Police and hence this<\/p>\n
witness cannot be relied upon. It is thus contended that the prosecution has<\/p>\n
failed to complete the chain of events and that the prosecution has been<\/p>\n
failed to connect the accused Satish Kumar with the commission of offence,<\/p>\n
whereas the accused Kuldeep Singh had already died during the pendency<\/p>\n
of the trial.\n<\/p>\n
                It has lastly been argued that there was no motive for the<\/p>\n
accused to commit the murder of the deceased Harjit Singh who was a mere<\/p>\n
taxi driver.\n<\/p>\n
                The arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant have<\/p>\n
been strongly controverted by the counsel appearing for the State, who has<\/p>\n
contended that both the accused Kuldeep Singh and Satish Kumar have<\/p>\n
brutally murdered the deceased Harjit Singh. It is submitted by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the State that the prosecution has not only proved the last seen<\/p>\n
evidence by examining PW10 Ravinder Singh, younger brother of the<\/p>\n
deceased, but has also established its case by proving the extra judicial<\/p>\n
confession made by the accused before Sohan Lal Chauhan PW18. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel has further submitted that the prosecution has proved the recovery<\/p>\n
of Chura on the basis of disclosure statements made by the accused and has<\/p>\n
also proved the finger prints on the empty glass bottle and glass tumbler of<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh and hence the judgement of the trial Court is liable to be<\/p>\n
upheld.\n<\/p>\n
                We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
\n                        Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                           -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
have perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
            The entire case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence. In<\/p>\n
C.Chenga Reddy and Ors. Vs. State of A.P., reported as (1996) 10 SCC 193,<\/p>\n
it has been observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n
            “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is<\/p>\n
            that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is<\/p>\n
            drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be<\/p>\n
            conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should<\/p>\n
            be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of<\/p>\n
            evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent<\/p>\n
            only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally<\/p>\n
            inconsistent with is innocence”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and Ors., reported as<\/p>\n
AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down that when a case rests upon<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:-<\/p>\n
            “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is<\/p>\n
            sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;<\/p>\n
            (2)    those circumstances should be of a definite tendency<\/p>\n
            unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;<\/p>\n
            (3)    the circumstances, taken cumulatively should from a<\/p>\n
            chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion<\/p>\n
            that within all human probability by the crime was committed<\/p>\n
            by the accused and none else; and<\/p>\n
            (4)    the circumstantial evidence in        order to sustain<\/p>\n
            conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of<\/p>\n
            any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and
\n                        Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                         -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
            such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the<\/p>\n
            accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In the light of the aforementioned observations of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, let us examine the evidence of the prosecution.<\/p>\n
            The prosecution has strongly relied upon the last seen evidence.<\/p>\n
In this regard, reliance has been placed on the statement of PW10 Ravinder<\/p>\n
Singh, younger brother of the deceased. This witness has stated that on<\/p>\n
27.10.2000, Satish Kumar and Kuldeep Singh had come to their house at<\/p>\n
2.00 p.m., when he was also present. They had hired the Tata Sumo for<\/p>\n
Rs.800\/- and had told that they are to go to Phillaur with their relations and<\/p>\n
are to return on the next day. Thereafter, they went with his brother Harjit<\/p>\n
Singh in the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.PB-01-2362. On the next<\/p>\n
day, he came to know that Harjit Singh had been killed and his dead body<\/p>\n
was found lying in the area of village Haripuar Khalsa on a link road.<\/p>\n
            Before accepting the last seen theory, it has to be established by<\/p>\n
the prosecution that the time gap, when the accused and the deceased were<\/p>\n
last seen together and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that<\/p>\n
chance of any other person coming in between becomes impossible. In<\/p>\n
Tipparam Prabhakar Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reported as 2000(3)<\/p>\n
AICLR 289, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “(i)   The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap<\/p>\n
                   between the point of time when the accused and the<\/p>\n
                   deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is<\/p>\n
                   found dead is so small that possibility of any person<\/p>\n
                   other than the accused being the author of the crime<\/p>\n
                   becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases
\n                         Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                      -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
                   to positively establish that the deceased was last seen<\/p>\n
                   with the accused when there is a long gap and<\/p>\n
                   possibility of other persons coming in between exists.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In the present case, the accused and the deceased were last seen<\/p>\n
together by PW10 Ravinder Singh, on 27.10.2000, at 2.00 p.m. The dead<\/p>\n
body of the Harjit Singh was found on the next day on 28.10.2000. One full<\/p>\n
day had elapsed between the time when Ravinder Singh had last seen the<\/p>\n
accused and the deceased together. During this period the possibility that<\/p>\n
the deceased had met other persons also cannot be ruled out.<\/p>\n
            According to PW10 Ravinder Singh, he had come to know that<\/p>\n
his brother Harjit Singh had been killed by the appellant and his co-accused<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh on 28.10.2000. However, this witness chose to remain silent<\/p>\n
and his statement was recorded on 30.12.2000, i.e. after more than 2 months<\/p>\n
of the murder of his brother. In case, PW10 Ravinder Singh had come to<\/p>\n
know that his brother had been murdered on 28.10.2000, then it is highly<\/p>\n
unnatural for him not to go to the Police and report the matter immediately.<\/p>\n
This witness has chosen to keep silent for more than 2 months before his<\/p>\n
statement was recorded. Thus, the last seen evidence of this witness is not<\/p>\n
reliable and trustworthy and it would be hazardous to convict the appellant<\/p>\n
on the basis of his testimony.\n<\/p>\n
            The prosecution had also placed reliance on the statement of<\/p>\n
PW3 Santokh Singh, who is alleged to have stated that on 5.11.2000, he saw<\/p>\n
the accused in the Tata Sumo vehicle on Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. This<\/p>\n
witness is also alleged to have stated that the accused did not make any<\/p>\n
disclosure statement regarding concealment of blood stained clothes. This<\/p>\n
witness was declared hostile and hence the prosecution has failed to prove
\n                        Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                        -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the accused were seen after the crime while driving the Tata Sumo<\/p>\n
vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
            The prosecution has also taken into possession an empty glass<\/p>\n
bottle and a glass tumbler from near the place of occurrence. The finger<\/p>\n
prints of both the accused Satish Kumar and Kuldeep Singh were also taken<\/p>\n
and sent to the Finger Prints Expert. PW6 Inspector Bal Krishan, Finger<\/p>\n
Prints Expert had stated that on 11.4.2001, ten copies of photographs<\/p>\n
alongwith two slips bearing ten digit impressions of Satish Kumar and<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh were received for comparison. The photographs Mark-A on<\/p>\n
photograph No.1 was found identical with the right thumb impression of<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh. Photograph Mark-B on photograph No.2 and impression B-<\/p>\n
1 on photograph No.3 were also found identical with right index finger of<\/p>\n
Kuldeep Singh. A perusal of his testimony shows that no finger prints were<\/p>\n
found of the appellant Satish Kumar. This witness has further stated that “it<\/p>\n
is correct that specimen signatures of Satish Kumar were different from the<\/p>\n
impressions on the photographs of bottle and glass tumbler”.           Thus,<\/p>\n
testimony of PW6 Inspector Bal Krishan shows that there were no finger<\/p>\n
prints of the accused Satish Kumar on the bottle and the glass tumbler and<\/p>\n
hence no inference can be drawn regarding the guilt of the appellant.<\/p>\n
Rather, the report of the Finger Prints Expert supports the case of the<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
            Another circumstance upon which the prosecution has relied is<\/p>\n
evidence of PW18 Sohan Lal Chauhan, before whom the accused are<\/p>\n
alleged to have made extra judicial confession. He is the President of<\/p>\n
Tarakshil Society. According to this witness, both the accused came to him<\/p>\n
on 25.11.2000, and told him that they had hired a taxi from Jalandhar on
\n                        Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                         -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
27.10.2000 and has committed the murder of Harjit Singh. Despite hearing<\/p>\n
the alleged confession of the accused, this witness never produced the<\/p>\n
accused before the Police and hence it would not be safe to convict the<\/p>\n
appellant on the basis of the extra judicial confession made by them before<\/p>\n
this witness. Apart from the above, this witness could not tell about the<\/p>\n
family members of the appellant Satish Kumar, nor he had ever visited their<\/p>\n
house. He had also stated that the accused did not have any direct dealings<\/p>\n
with him. This clearly shows that the accused were not very close to PW18<\/p>\n
Sohan Lal Chauhan and hence it is highly improbable that a person would<\/p>\n
confess to his guilt before a person who is not very well known to him.<\/p>\n
            Furthermore, a perusal of the post mortem report shows that<\/p>\n
there were 28 injuries on the person of the deceased, however, as per the<\/p>\n
inquest report, only 9 injuries were found and as such there is a discrepancy<\/p>\n
in the inquest report and the post mortem with regard to the injuries on the<\/p>\n
dead body Harjit Singh.\n<\/p>\n
            As a result of aforementioned discussion, it is clear that<\/p>\n
although the deceased Harjit Singh was killed brutally, but the prosecution<\/p>\n
has failed to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. The<\/p>\n
prosecution has not been able to prove that after meeting PW10 Ravinder<\/p>\n
Singh on 27.10.2000 at 2.00 p.m., the accused did not meet any other person<\/p>\n
and hence the prosecution has not been able to prove the last seen evidence<\/p>\n
against the accused. The report of the Finger Print Expert PW6 Inspector<\/p>\n
Bal Krishan is also against the prosecution, inasmuch as, it has been clearly<\/p>\n
stated by PW6 Inspector Bal Krishan that specimen signatures of Satish<\/p>\n
Kumar were different from the impressions on the photographs of the bottle<\/p>\n
and glass tumbler. The prosecution wanted to prove that the accused had
\n                         Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007                     -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
been seen driving the Tata Sumo vehicle by PW3 Santokh Singh on<\/p>\n
5.11.2000, but this witness was declared hostile and hence this circumstance<\/p>\n
has also not been proved by the prosecution against the accused.<\/p>\n
             Furthermore, the testimony of PW18 Sohan Lal Chauhan also<\/p>\n
does not inspire confidence, as firstly the accused did not know him very<\/p>\n
well to have made an extra judicial confession before him and secondly, the<\/p>\n
fact that the accused made extra judicial confession on 25.11.2000, and<\/p>\n
despite that this witness did not hand them over to the Police, hence it<\/p>\n
would not be safe to convict the accused-appellant merely on the basis of<\/p>\n
extra judicial confession.\n<\/p>\n
             As a result of the aforementioned discussion, we are of the<\/p>\n
considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case<\/p>\n
against the appellant Satish Kumar beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, we give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charges<\/p>\n
under Section 302, 392 and 201 IPC. The appeal filed by the appellant is<\/p>\n
allowed and the judgement of Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dated 29.9.2006, is<\/p>\n
set aside.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                       (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)\n                                             JUDGE\n\n\n\nSeptember 24, 2009                         (MOHINDER PAL)\nGulati                                        JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009 Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A. No.D-163-DB of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: September 24, 2009 SATISH KUMAR S\/O JAILA RAM …APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122814","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSatish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-16T07:06:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-16T07:06:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3704,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-16T07:06:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-16T07:06:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-16T07:06:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009"},"wordCount":3704,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009","name":"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-16T07:06:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-vs-state-of-punjab-on-24-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122814","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122814"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122814\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122814"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122814"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122814"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}