{"id":70869,"date":"1999-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999"},"modified":"2015-11-11T00:18:20","modified_gmt":"2015-11-10T18:48:20","slug":"state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: Banerjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Umesh C Banerjee, K.T.Thomes, D.P.Mohapatro<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGURDEEP SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t08\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nUmesh C Banerjee, K.T.Thomes, D.P.Mohapatro\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
BANERJEE,J.\n<\/p>\n
      The  short  question involved in the matter  in  issue
\nbefore\tthis  Court  is the justifiability of the  order  of
\nacquittal  passed  by  the High Court by reason of  lack  of
\nprobative value of an extra judicial confession, as found by
\nthe High Court, in an appeal against conviction and sentence
\nunder  section\t376  read with sections 302 and 201  of\t the
\nIndian\tPenal Code.  Admittedly, there is no direct evidence
\navailable on the record so as to attribute the commission of
\ncrime  to the respondent herein but it is only on the  basis
\nof  an\textra judicial confession that the learned  Sessions
\nJudge  thought\tit  fit\t to   pass  the\t sentence  for\tlife
\nimprisonment,  which  stands  reversed by  the\tHigh  Court.
\nConfession   in\t common\t acceptation   means   and   implies
\nacknowledgment\tof  guilt  – its evidentiary value  and\t its
\nacceptability however shall have to be assessed by the Court
\nhaving\tdue regard to the credibility of the witnesses.\t  In
\nthe  event  however,  the Court is otherwise in\t a  position
\nhaving\tdue  regard to the attending circumstances  believes
\nthe  witness  before  whom  the confession is  made  and  is
\notherwise satisfied that the confession is in fact voluntary
\nand  without  there  being any doubt in regard\tthereto,  an
\norder  of  conviction can be founded on such evidence.\t The
\nobservations  of  this Court in the case of State  of  Uttar
\nPradesh v.  M.K.  Anthony<\/a> (1985 Crl.  Law Journal 493) seems
\nto  be rather apposite in this context.\t In paragraph 15  of
\nthe Report, this Court observed as below:  “There is neither
\nany  rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished  by
\nextra-judicial\tconfession  cannot  be\trelied\tupon  unless
\ncorroborated  by  some other credible evidence.\t The  Courts
\nhave  considered the evidence of extra judicial confession a
\nweak  piece  of\t evidence.   If\t the  evidence\tabout  extra
\njudicial    confession\t  comes\t   from\t   the\t mouth\t  of
\nwitness\/witnesses  who\tappear\tto  be\tunbiased,  not\teven
\nremotely  inimical  to the accused, and in respect  of\twhom
\nnothing\t is  brought out which may tend to indicate that  he
\nmay have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to
\nthe  accused;  the words spoken to by the witness are clear,
\nunambiguous  and unmistakably convey that the accused is the
\nperpetrator  of\t the  crime and nothing is  omitted  by\t the
\nwitness which may militate against it, then after subjecting
\nthe  evidence  of  the\twitness to a rigorous  test  on\t the
\ntouchstone  of credibility, if it passes the test, the extra
\njudicial  confession  can be accepted and be the basis of  a
\nconviction.   In  such\ta  situation, to  go  in  search  of
\ncorroboration  itself  tends to cast a shadow of doubt\tover
\nthe  evidence.\tIf the evidence of extra judicial confession
\nis reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be
\nrelied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon.”\n<\/p>\n
      Incidentally,  this Court in the case of Narayan Singh
\n&  Ors.\t  v.  State of M.P.  ( AIR 1985 SC  1678)  expressly
\nobserved  that\tit is not open to any court to start with  a
\npresumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type of
\nevidence.  In paragraph 7 of the report this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
      “Apart  from this there is the evidence of PWs 5 and 9
\nwho  state  on oath that one of the accused admitted  before
\nthem  that  he\thad  murdered  the  deceased.\tThe  learned
\nSessions Judge has brushed aside their evidence by presuming
\nthat  their  statements\t constituting\tan  extra   judicial
\nconfession is a very weak type of evidence.  This is a wrong
\nview  of the law.  It is not open to any court to start with
\na  presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type
\nof  evidence.\tIt  would  depend  on  the  nature  of\t the
\ncircumstances, the time when the confession was made and the
\ncredibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession.
\nIn  the\t instant case, after perusing the evidence of PWs  5
\nand 9 we are unable to find anything which could lead to the
\nconclusion that these independent witnesses were not telling
\nthe  truth.  The evidence of these two witnesses (PWs 5\t and\n<\/p>\n
9)  which  lends  support  to  the evidence  of\t PW  11\t was
\nsufficient  to\twarrant the conviction of the accused.\t The
\nSessions  Judge\t has  committed\t a grave  error\t of  law  in
\nanalysing  and appreciating the evidence of PWs 5 and 9\t and
\nbrushing them aside on untenable grounds.”\n<\/p>\n
      In  Baldev Raj vs.  State of Haryana<\/a> ( AIR 1991 SC 37)
\nthis Court further stated the law as below:-\n<\/p>\n
      “An  extra  judicial confession, if voluntary, can  be
\nrelied\tupon  by  the  Court along with\t other\tevidence  in
\nconvicting the accused.\t The value of the evidence as to the
\nconfession  depends  upon the veracity of the  witnesses  to
\nwhom  it  is made.  It is true that the Court  requires\t the
\nwitness\t to  give  the actual words used by the\t accused  as
\nnearly as possible but it is not an invariable rule that the
\nCourt  should  not  accept the evidence, if not\t the  actual
\nwords  but  the substance were given.  It is for  the  Court
\nhaving\tregard\tto the credibility of the witness to  accept
\nthe  evidence  or not.\tWhen the Court believes the  witness
\nbefore\twhom the confession is made and it is satisfied that
\nthe  confession was voluntary, conviction can be founded  on
\nsuch  evidence.\t  Keeping these principles in mind, we\tfind
\nthat  the  confession has been properly accepted  and  acted
\nupon by the Courts below and there is no scope for any doubt
\nregarding the complicity of the appellant in the crime.\t The
\nconfession of the appellant was voluntary.  The testimony of
\nPW 4 and PW 5 being responsible persons could not be doubted
\nin  the\t absence of any material to show that they had\tbeen
\nmotivated  to  falsely\timplicate the appellant.   The\tvery
\npresence  of the appellant and his father with the party  of
\nIshar  Dass  throughout\t the  operation\t up  to\t lodging  of
\ncomplaint at the police station dispel any suspicion against
\nthe  prosecution case and clearly point to the\ttruthfulness
\nof  the\t same.\t We  are,  therefore,  unable  to  find\t any
\ninfirmity  in  the  confession which has been  accepted\t and
\nrelied upon by the Courts below.”\n<\/p>\n
      While  it is true that in Narayan Singh’s case (supra)
\nthis  Court  expressly observed that it is not open  to\t any
\nCourt  to  start  with\ta presumption  that  extra  judicial
\nconfession  is a weak type of evidence, a later decision  of
\nthis Court in Kavita vs.  State of Tamilnadu (1998 (5) JT SC\n<\/p>\n
151)  stated that in the very nature of things it is a\tweak
\npiece  of evidence.  In paragraph 4 of the Report this Court
\nin Kavita’s case (supra) observed:\n<\/p>\n
      “There  is  no doubt that convictions can be based  on
\nextra judicial confession but it is well settled that in the
\nvery  nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.\t  It
\nis  to\tbe  proved just like any other fact  and  the  value
\nthereof\t depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it
\nis made.  It may not be necessary that the actual words used
\nby  the\t accused must be given by the witness but it is\t for
\nthe  Court  to decide on the acceptability of  the  evidence
\nhaving regard to the credibility of the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
      Apparently  there\t may seem to be some  expression  of
\ndivergence but on the totality of the situation, question of
\nthere being any difference of expression of opinion does not
\narise,\tsince  Kavita’s case (supra) in no  uncertain  terms
\nlaid  down that the evidentiary value of the extra  judicial
\nconfession  depends  upon the veracity of the  witnesses  to
\nwhom  it  is made and it is for the Court to decide  on\t the
\nacceptability\tof  the\t evidence   having  regard  to\t the
\ncredibility  of the witnesses.\tHaving dealt with the basics
\nof  the\t legal issue as regards evidentiary value  of  extra
\njudicial  confession and adverting to the factual matrix  of
\nthe  matter  at this juncture, the prosecution case as\tmade
\nout  is to the following effect:  The deceased being a young
\ngirl  of 10 years along with her brother Sandeep had gone to
\nthe  house  of\tthe accused around 7.30\/8.00 p.m.   on\t18th
\nNovember,  1989 for the purpose of watching television.\t The
\nevidence  disclosed  that Rajinder Singh who happened to  be
\nfather’s  sister’s  husband did also come to pay a visit  to
\nthe house of the deceased’s father and it so happened and as
\nthe  evidence  records that Rajinder Singh also went to\t the
\nhouse  of the accused for watching television along with the
\ntwo  little  children:\tThe factual score depicts  that\t the
\nbrother\t continued  to\twatch the television but  the  elder
\nsister\tleft  the television room to go back to\t her  house.
\nRajinder  Singh again as the evidence disclosed came out  as
\nwell and found that the accused in a drunken state following
\nthe  deceased  on  her\tway home around 8 O’  clock  in\t the
\nevening.  The next piece of evidence is rather curious:\t the
\ndeceased girl does not reach home but Rajinder Singh reaches
\nhome,  had his meal along with the parents of the  deceased.
\nThe  younger  brother  who  also  went\tout  for  television
\nwatching  in  the  house of the accused, returned  home\t and
\njoined\tthe parents and the uncle for the meal – there\twas,
\nhowever,  no anxiety for the missing daughter of the  family
\nand  it\t was  only after Rajinder Singh left for  his  house
\nwhich is at the next village and around 10 to 15 k.m.  away,
\nthe deceased’s father Jaswant Singh tried to effect a search
\nabout  the daughter – Jaswant Singh, in a very natural\tway,
\nwent  to the house of the accused and found the accused\t and
\nhis brother to be very heavily drunk in the house itself and
\nthus  had  to come back without much information  about\t the
\nmissing\t daughter.  The evidence goes on to record that next
\nmorning\t the  body  of the deceased was found  in  the\topen
\nverandah  of  a building belonging to one Smt.\tAjmer  Kaur.
\nIn  her\t evidence Smt.\tAjmer Kaur, being PW 4\tstated\tthat
\nwhen  she had gone to the verandah for taking `turi’ for the
\ncattle,\t found\tthe dead body of the child lying  under\t the
\nheap  of `turi’ and on such a find immediately informed\t the
\ngirl’s\tfather\tJaswant Singh.\tOn this score the father  of
\nthe  deceased  stated that he on being informed cleared\t the
\n`turi’\tand  saw the dead body of his daughter\tlying  there
\nfully  naked and her salwar was lying near her.\t The  father
\nstated\tthat  she  was smeared with blood and was  dead\t and
\nthereafter requested the son of the Sarpanch to keep a watch
\non  the\t body  and went to the police station to  lodge\t the
\nreport\talongwith the Sarpanch.\t The police arrived and\t the
\nusual  formalities were completed and FIR was lodged and  on
\ncompletion  of\tthe  inquest sent the body for\tpost  mortem
\nexamination.   Dr.  H.N.  Sharma, P.W.5 found the  following
\ninjuries  on  the  person of the deceased:-  “(1)  In  front
\naspect\tof  the neck, 1 c.m.  above the midline 2  abrasions
\nwith dimensions of 2X3 cm were seen.  On disection underline
\ntissues were found to be swollen.  Clotted blood was seen in
\ntissues.  The thyroid cartrilige on right laminu was showing
\nfracture line.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  The\tparienial area showed toori strawe.  In\t the
\nvulvel\tarea blood clot was seen, hymen found ruptured,\t the
\nvagine\tadmitted  two fingers, posterior vaginal  wall\tnear
\ncommisuru  showed lacaration.  Vaginal walls were congested.
\nLabia  minore were found congested and torn, two swabs\twere
\ntaken  each  from vagine and cervix.  They were\t smeared  on
\nslides\tand  sent  to  Chemical Examiner  Govt.\t  of  Punjab
\nPatiala.\n<\/p>\n
      The  upper  part\tof chest had prominent\tveins.\t The
\nlaryogal  cavity showed clotted blood.\tRight side of  heart
\nfound full of dark coloured blood.  Stomach was found empty,
\nbladder contained around 20 ml.\t of urine.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  post\t mortem Doctor opined that death was  caused
\ndue  to\t injury No.1.  He also found that the  deceased\t was
\nsubjected  to  rape  before the murder and the\tage  of\t the
\ndeceased  was between 7 to 11 years- the facts above  cannot
\nbut  be\t ascribed  to  be not only serious  but\t ghastly  in
\nnature.\t  While it is true that the social aberration  which
\nresults\t from  the offence is devastating by reason  of\t the
\nnature of the offence committed on a very young girl and the
\noffenders  cannot possibly obtain any support or  mitigating
\neffect from courts of law, we however, remind ourselves that
\nthe  law  of  the  land shall have  to\tbe  administered  in
\naccordance with the principles of criminal justice.  At this
\njuncture,  another  aspect of the matter ought to be  noted,
\nnamely,\t an extra judicial confession by the accused Gurdeep
\nSingh  to  one\tJaspal Singh (P.W.7).\tThe  extra  judicial
\nconfession runs as below:\n<\/p>\n
      “that  20\t days  ago  I had  committed  a\t wrong\tact.
\nManpreet  Kaur\ther younger brother Sandeep Singh and  their
\nrelation  had  come to see television at our house.  I\tcame
\nfrom  outside after taking liquor.  Then I was served run by
\nmy  brother  who is in the army.  When Manpreet went out  of
\nthe  house, I followed her.  Then I caught hold of her\ttook
\nher  in\t the  veranda where grain husk was  lying.   I\tthen
\nuntied\tstring of salwar, committed rape on her and when she
\nraised\talarm,\tI gagged her mouth with her shawl.   When  I
\nthought that she will narrate what had happened to her, then
\nI  throttled her and killed and I concealed her body in\t the
\nheap  of  grain husk and then I ran away towards a pond\t and
\nsince  then  I\thave been roaming about.  You are  known  to
\nJaswant\t Singh, father of girl.\t I had committed this act in
\nthe  influence of liquor and get me pardon from them as they
\nare your relatives.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  is the evidence of Jaspal Singh (PW 7) that he  is
\ndriving\t taxi at Ropar and the accused was also driving\t the
\ncar  of a Sant which was also being used as a taxi and\tused
\nto  park his car in the same parking space as used by Jaspal
\nSingh.\t It is the categorical evidence of Jaspal Singh that
\non  12th  December,  1989 i.e.\tafter about 24 days  of\t the
\nincident  the  accused came to him and told him that he\t had
\ncommitted  rape on Manpreet Kaur and murdered her.  The said
\nevidence  of  Jaspal  Singh  was  accepted  by\tthe  learned
\nSessions   Judge  by  reason  of   the\tfact  that  it\t was
\ncorroborated  by  the  evidence of Rajinder  Singh  who\t had
\nstated that he found the accused following the deceased in a
\ndrunken\t condition.   But that finding was negatived by\t the
\nHigh  Court  on\t the ground that extra\tjudicial  confession
\nafter  long  lapse of time is of no consequence.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  reminded\t itself that circumstantial evidence  should
\nnot  only  be consistent with the guilt of the\taccused\t but
\nshould\t be   inconsistent   with    his   innocence.\t The
\ncircumstances  must  be of such a nature and should  form  a
\ncomplete  chain as to be capable of supporting the exclusive
\nhypothesis  that the accused is guilty of the crime of which
\nhe  is\tcharged.  There is no denial of the fact that  extra
\njudicial  confession is admissible in evidence and the court
\nin  appropriate cases can rely thereon to the extent of even
\nbasing\tconviction  of\tthe accused.  In a  long  catena  of
\ndecisions of this Court, the settled position of the present
\nday  is\t that  the extra judicial confession by\t itself\t if,
\notherwise  in  conformity  with the law, can be\t treated  as
\nsubstantive  evidence,\tand in appropriate cases it  can  be
\nused  to  punish an offender.  We , however, hasten  to\t add
\nhere  that  this  statement of law stands qualified  to\t the
\nextent\tthat  the  Court  should  insist  on  some  assuring
\nmaterial  or  circumstance  to treat the same  as  piece  of
\nsubstantive  evidence.\t Having\t thus  stated  the  law\t and
\ngeneral principles as to the extent of reliance to be placed
\non the circumstantial evidence, let us at this juncture turn
\non  to the factual score in a little bit greater detail\t for
\nthe purposes of the assessment of the entire situation as to
\nwhether extra judicial confession noticed above can have any
\ncredence  or evidentiary value.\t But before so doing certain
\nbasic  features\t in the matter in issue ought to  be  noted.
\nThe  features being:  (i) the deceased, a young girl of 7 to
\n10 years along with her brother had gone to the house of the
\naccused\t in  the  evening   for\t television  viewing;\t(ii)
\nRajinder  Singh who happened to be the brother-in-law of the
\ndeceased’s  father,  also deemed it fit to go and watch\t the
\ntelevision programme rather than stay with the relatives and
\nhave some chit chat with the brother-in-law;  (iii) Rajinder
\nSingh also went out of the Television Room shortly after the
\ndeceased  left\tthe house of the accused and found that\t the
\ndeceased  was  being  followed by a drunken man –  it  is  a
\ndefinite  piece of evidence in the matter that the house  of
\nthe  deceased  and that of the accused is not very far\tfrom
\neach  other ( may be two or three houses in between);\t(iv)
\nRajinder  Singh\t being an elderly man – at least not a\tteen
\nager  –\t allowed  a  girl of 7 to 10 years,  being  a  close
\nrelative,  to be followed by a drunken man and quietly\twent
\nback  to  the  deceased’s  house without  any  utterance  as
\nregards\t the event witnessed by him – had his meal with\t the
\nbrother-in-law\tand  went  back to the village:\t  The  facts
\nabove,\thave been very strongly criticised by the High Court
\nand  we\t find sufficient justification in that regard  since
\nnormal\treaction  of a relative, would be to take  the\tgirl
\nhome or bring the father on to the sight immediately or even
\nafter  going back to the deceased’s house narrate the  event
\nof  the\t girl being followed by a drunken man as also to  go
\nout  with  the\tfather\tin search  of  the  girl  afterwards
\nalongwith  the deceased’s father:  It is difficult to  treat
\nit  as\ta  conduct  in\tconsonance  with  the  normal  human
\nbehaviour  of  a relative having seen the young girl  of  10
\nyears\tbeing\tfollowed  by  a\t  drunken   person.    Human
\nrelationship  cannot possibly have the same kind of reaction
\nas  has\t been depicted by Shri Rajinder Singh and it  is  on
\nthis  score  that  the learned Advocate for  the  respondent
\nherein also strongly commented upon the introduction of this
\nparticular   witness  in  order\t to   have  a\tsemblem\t  of
\ncorroboration\tat  best  so   far  as\tthe   extra-judicial
\nconfession  is\tconcerned.  The recovery of the body of\t the
\ndeceased  by  itself  does not find any link or in  any\t way
\nconnect\t the  accused  with the commission of  the  offence.
\nRecords\t depict\t that Sandeep being the younger brother\t was
\nnot  examined  and  the learned Advocate in support  of\t the
\nappeal,\t also  has no answer.  Turning attention on  to\t the
\nissue of probative value and total evidenciary impact in the
\nmatter,\t one  cannot  but return a verdict  of\tnon-  credit
\nworthiness  of such a piece of circumstantial evidence:\t  24
\nlong  days  have  elapsed  –  and   it\tis  only  then\t the
\ninvestigating  officer\twas  able to locate  a\tfellow\tTaxi
\ndriver,\t who  appears  to  be\tthe  brother-in-law  of\t the
\nbrother-in-  law of father of the deceased.  The evidence of
\nRajinder  Singh thus becomes important – but is it worthy of
\nsuch  an importance – The Sessions Court has exaggerated its
\neffect, whereas the High Court has completely over-turned it
\nand  described the same as a wholly unreliable and  untrust-
\nworthy\tevidence.   We\thave herein before dealt  with\tthis
\nparticular  piece of evidence – Can the reaction of a  close
\nrelative be in the manner as Rajinder Singh had – The answer
\ncannot but be in the negative – where is the anxiety to look
\nfor  the  girl\t– where is the desire to  see  that  nothing
\nuntoward  should  happen  – a minor girl of 10\tyears  being
\nfollowed  by a drunken man and thereafter the girl does\t not
\ncome  back  home till such time he finishes the meal:\tEven
\nthereafter not a word to the father but he quietly went back
\nto  his\t own village:  It is not a trust-worthy evidence  to
\nrely  on for corroboration to the extra-judicial  confession
\nto complete the chain of circumstances.\t If the above pieces
\nof  evidence  are kept aside – there is no  other  available
\nevidence  which\t can even remotely connect or point  towards
\nthe  guilt  of\tthe accused.  There is no dispute  that\t the
\ndeceased was raped and murdered but that would not be enough
\nfor the prosecution to rope in the accused without some such
\nevidence depicting unmistakably to the guilt of the accused.
\nThe  next important aspect is the credibility of the  person
\nwho  spoke about the confession.  He is a taxi driver and no
\npart  of  evidence records that he has had a clout with\t the
\nPolice\t–  It  is  not\tin evidence  as\t to  the  period  of
\nfriendship  between accused and the witness – Indeed a\tvery
\nclose  friend may be taken into confidence and a  confession
\neffected – Commission of an offence of rape on a minor child
\nand  thereafter eliminating the victim girl from this  world
\ncould  not  have  been talked of or discussed  with  any  or
\neverybody  so  casually.  There must be some cogent  reasons
\nfor  making  a confession of this nature.  The\tonly  reason
\navailable  in evidence for affording an occasion to make the
\nconfession  is\tthat the accused used to drive the car of  a
\nSant  and  as  such,  he used to park his car  in  the\tsame
\nparking area where the witness was also parking the car.  In
\nour  view this piece of evidence does not inspire confidence
\nas  to\tthe  credibility of the witness.  The  choice  of  a
\nperson\tto  confess cannot be effected just like  that.\t  In
\nthis  context  strong reliance was also placed by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  on  the decision of this Court in the case of  Makhan
\nSingh  v.   State of Punjab (AIR<\/a> 1988 SC 1705).\t This  Court
\nwhile  dealing\twith  more  or\tless  similar  situation  in
\nparagraph 11 observed:-\n<\/p>\n
      “On  10th\t August, 1985 FIR was lodged by Nihal  Singh
\n(PW2) and on 13.8.1985 the appellant went to Amrik Singh (PW\n<\/p>\n
3) to make an extra judicial confession.  Amrik Singh (PW 3)
\nto  make  an extra- judicial confession.  Amrik\t Singh\tsays
\nthat the appellant told him that as the police was after him
\nhe  had come and confessed the fact so that he might not  be
\nunnecessarily  harassed.  There is nothing to indicate\tthat
\nthis Amrik Singh was a person having some influence with the
\npolice\tor a person of some status to protect the  appellant
\nfrom harassment.  In his cross-examination he admits that he
\nis  neither  the Lambardar or Sarpanch nor a person  who  is
\nfrequently  visiting the police station.  He further  admits
\nthat  when he produced the appellant there was a crowd of 10
\nto  12\tpersons.  There is no other  corroborative  evidence
\nabout the extra-judicial confession.  As rightly conceded by
\nthe  learned  counsel  for  the\t State\tthat  extra-judicial
\nconfession is a very weak piece of evidence and is hardly of
\nany  consequence.   The council, however, mainly  relied  on
\nmotive,\t the evidence of last seen, the evidence of recovery
\nof  dead  bodies  and the conduct of the  appellant  in\t not
\nmaking a report about the missing father and son.”\n<\/p>\n
      The confession in the normal course of events are made
\nto  avoid harassment by the police and to a person who could
\notherwise  protect  the accused against such  a\t harassment.
\nThe  records in the present appeal do not reflect any one of
\nthese  aspects.\t  As  such it is difficult to point  to\t the
\naccused\t with  the  crime  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence
\navailable in this case.\t The incident did take place on 18th
\nNovember,  1989 and the body was recovered on 19th November.
\nThe  extra-judicial confession of the accused as regards his
\ninvolvement  in\t the crime is said to have been effected  to
\nJaspal Singh PW 7 on December 7, 1989 – thus a delay of more
\nthan  20 days without any explanation whatsoever.  The delay
\nin  recording  extra-judicial  confession  before  a  person
\nwholly\tunconnected  with the police is always a  matter  of
\ngreat  suspect.\t  In  our view the High Court was  right  in
\nrejecting  the\tconfessional statement.\t In view of want  of
\nsufficient circumstances, we record our concurrence with the
\nfindings  of  the  High Court that the\tcharge\tagainst\t the
\nrespondent  has not been proved beyond all reasonable  doubt
\nand  his  conviction  therefore cannot\tbe  sustained.\t The
\nappeal is hence dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999 Author: Banerjee Bench: Umesh C Banerjee, K.T.Thomes, D.P.Mohapatro PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: GURDEEP SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/09\/1999 BENCH: Umesh C Banerjee, K.T.Thomes, D.P.Mohapatro JUDGMENT: BANERJEE,J. The short question involved in the matter in issue before this Court is […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-70869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-10T18:48:20+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-10T18:48:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":4093,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-10T18:48:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999 - 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\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-10T18:48:20+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-10T18:48:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999"},"wordCount":4093,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999","name":"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-10T18:48:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-vs-gurdeep-singh-on-8-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab vs Gurdeep Singh on 8 September, 1999"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/70869","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=70869"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70869\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}