Supreme Court Affirms High Court’s Judgment Sentencing Appellant to Life Imprisonment in Murder Case
Supreme Court Affirms High Court’s Judgment Sentencing Appellant to Life Imprisonment in Murder Case
Case Name: Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi
Case No.: Criminal Appeal NO(S). 55 OF 2015
Dated: May 07, 2024
Quorum: Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Usha and the accused appellant were married, and their three children were born outside of the union. But after the couple were involved in a marital dispute, the appellant moved away from his wife Usha and settled in his hamlet of Khatta, Uttar Pradesh.
On May 20, 1990, the PCR sent a wireless communication to the police station personnel in Bhajan Pura informing them of an event that had occurred outside the stores in Rori and Badarpur. Following up on the aforementioned information, a few constables arrived at the residence where Usha w/o Sukhpal was discovered dead on a cot in one of the rooms.
After a quick examination, it was discovered that the deceased Usha had cuts, scrapes, and other wound marks on her neck, mouth, shoulder, and private areas that were connected to bleeding. Additionally, dragging marks below the knee were discovered on the right leg. Tablet strips were discovered strewn all over the cot the deceased person was resting on. Authorities claiming to have found a handwritten letter (Exhibit PW-12/E) from the scene of the crime that contained a recital proving the writer was Usha’s murderer.
It was revealed that Sukhpal had been hired by M/s. R.P. Associates, where Ashok Kumar Pathak was employed. Suspecting that his wife Usha was unfaithful, which frequently resulted in arguments between them, Sukhpal moved away from his wife and kids to live in the village of Khatta, Uttar Pradesh. In the past, he commuted from the village to work.
Sukhpal had visited Usha four days before the alleged incident, and Sudha, Usha’s sister, had also visited that day. After arguing with Usha, Sukhpal left. The three of Usha’s children were taken by her sister Sudha to her home the following day. Days before the incident, on May 19, 1990, Ashok Kumar Pathak noticed that Sukhpal had stopped by Usha on his cycle in the evening after he had returned from duty and eaten. This was around 9.30 p.m.
He proceeded to sleep on the terrace, but as it began to rain, he came downstairs and discovered that Sukhpal and Usha had also entered their chamber. When he noticed Sukhpal’s bicycle parked in the courtyard the following morning, on May 20, 1990, he assumed that he and Usha were inside the home and went about his normal business.
In a judgement dated January 7, 2010, the learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused appellant, concluding that the confession note he wrote demonstrated his involvement in the crime. The prosecution had proven that the accused appellant had been with the deceased Usha at her home on the intervening night of May 19 and 20, 1990, when she was murdered.
Through an appeal by special leave, the accused appellant has contested the foregoing judgement upholding his conviction and punishment.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 299 of CrPC- Record of evidence in absence of accused. In the event that it is established that an accused individual has escaped and that there is no imminent possibility of apprehending him, the court having jurisdiction to try or commit the accused person for the offence complained of may, in his absence, question any witnesses called by the prosecution and record their depositions. Any such depositions may be used against the accused person in the investigation or trial for the offence for which he is charged if the deponent is deceased, incapable of testifying, missing, or whose presence cannot be obtained without a level of delay, expense, or inconvenience that would be unreasonable given the circumstances of the case.
- Section 313 CrPC- Power to examine the accused. During any investigation or trial, the following procedures may be utilised by the court to give the accused the opportunity to directly address any circumstances that may be raised in the evidence against him: (a) the court may ask the accused any questions at any time without giving him advance notice, regardless of the circumstances.
- Section 302 IPC- Punishment for Murder. Those who commit murder will be punished with life in prison or the death penalty, as well as a fine.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:
When the trial court and the high court decided that complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak was questioned under oath during procedures conducted in accordance with Section 299 CrPC, they both made major factual errors. The statement of complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak that the trial court and the High Court relied upon is actually the statement of the said witness recorded by the SHO, PS Bhajan Pura under Section 161 CrPC, which was proved by the Investigating Officer (PW13) in proceedings under Section 299 CrP, according to learned counsel, who states that this finding is completely at odds with the record.
It was also vehemently argued that the prosecution failed to make any effort to obtain the two admitted documents—Sanjiv Jain’s employer—from the accused appellant, which means that the confession note (Exhibit PW-12/E) is a fake piece of evidence. This claim was made in opposition to the argument that the act of gathering these
Additionally, it was argued that Sudha’s (PW-10) proof be disregarded because it is completely untrustworthy and unreliable. The prosecution acknowledged that the accused appellant and Usha were no longer together, hence it is completely implausible that the accused appellant visited and remained with Usha just a few days before to the occurrence, as reported by Sudha (PW-10). He argued that Sudha’s (PW-10) testimony was unreliable and ought to be rejected.
The prosecution’s assertion that the accused appellant was fleeing is completely baseless, since the FIR made it abundantly evident that the accused appellant had moved back to his village in Khatta, Uttar Pradesh, following his divorce from dead Usha. But the investigating officer (PW-13) did not even attempt to track down the accused appellant in his hamlet.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The learned counsel of the respondent the state fiercely and angrily disagreed with the arguments put out by the appellant’s knowledgeable counsel, arguing that the entire chain of circumstances accusing the accused points solely and completely to his guilt.
Additionally, it was contended that Ashok Kumar Pathak’s statement, which was recorded as PW-1 during proceedings under Section 299 CrPC, was appropriately accepted as credible and admissible evidence. Ashok Kumar Pathak was apprehended by the accused appellant, thus the witness could not be questioned during a regular trial. This was not a purposeful conduct on the part of the prosecution. Despite their best efforts, the prosecution agency was unable to locate the witness. The main justification for not questioning Ashok Kumar Pathak is the accused’s protracted disappearance.
It was further argued that The accused appellant used to fight with Usha, believing her to be unfaithful, and there were frequent fights between the couples, according to Sudha, Usha’s sister (PW-10), who testified. Four days before the incident, they had gotten into a disagreement. This also proves the motivation for the offence that the appellant is said to have had.
It was pleaded with the court to reject the appeal, arguing that the prosecution had established the case against the accused appellant through a strong and convincing chain of circumstantial evidence.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The motive, last seen, confession, and disappearance from the crime scene after the crime were all discussed by witness Ashok Kumar Pathak (PW-1) in his statement dated July 17, 1991, which was recorded on sworn affirmation during the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC. The court carefully examined these circumstances. It should be noted that Ashok Kumar Pathak had no reason at all to falsely accuse the accused appellant of killing Usha.
the court took into account It was undisputed that Usha had died by homicidal means. Usha had been manually strangled, and asphyxia was the cause of death, according to the medical jurist’s unequivocal testimony. So, it is not necessary to go into great depth about the medical data.
Unquestionable proof of the numerous actions made by the investigating officer (PW-13) to gather evidence during the investigation to connect the accused appellant with Usha’s murder was provided by him. The testimony of Ashok Kumar Pathak unequivocally establishes that the accused appellant was present with Usha on the evening before the murder.
Consequently, the court did not hesitate to uphold the positions of the trial court and the high court when they found the accused appellant guilty of killing Usha and to affirm that decision.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.