Murder Conviction: Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

The case before the Supreme Court of India involves the tragic death of Surjit Kaur, which has been the subject of multiple appeals. The appellants in this case—Darshan Singh, Jagmohan Singh, and Swaran Kaur—were convicted for the murder of Surjit Kaur, with the High Court upholding their conviction. The appellants challenged this conviction in the present appeal.

The prosecution’s case revolves around the inheritance of land by Surjit Kaur and the disputes that arose from the non-payment of lease money by her son, Avtar Singh, and his family. Surjit Kaur had leased out land to Avtar Singh, but due to his failure to pay the lease amount, tensions mounted between them, leading to a fatal confrontation. The body of Surjit Kaur was found on 29th March 2005, and after a series of investigations and confessions, the accused were arrested.

Key Facts of the Case:

The deceased, Surjit Kaur, had inherited land from her deceased son, Gurmit Singh, and was facing disputes over the non-payment of lease money by her son Avtar Singh.
On 29th March 2005, her body was found in a decomposed state, and investigations revealed that she had died due to poisoning and injuries caused by strangulation and a blow to the chest.
During the investigation, the police recovered key evidence, including a telephone diary, acid, and a folding iron chair, which linked the accused to the crime.
Witnesses, including Kuldeep Singh (PW-13) and Bhupinder Singh (PW-16), provided crucial testimonies that led to the conviction of the accused.

Petitioner and Respondent Arguments:

Petitioner (Appellants): The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of events, and crucial evidence such as the evidence of ‘last seen’ was not reliable. They contended that the confessions made by the accused were not corroborated by independent evidence and therefore should not be the basis of conviction.

Respondent (State of Punjab): The State argued that while the evidence of ‘last seen’ was not conclusive, the extra-judicial confessions made by the accused were crucial pieces of evidence. These confessions were supported by the recovery of the murder weapon, a folding chair, and the disfigured body of the deceased. The prosecution also relied on the motive behind the crime—disputes over the lease money owed to the deceased.

Important Judge Arguments:

Justice Hemant Gupta: The Court found no merit in the appellants’ arguments and noted that the extra-judicial confessions made by the accused were crucial pieces of evidence. These confessions were supported by the recovery of the acid bottle and the iron chair, both linked to the crime.

Justice Nageswara Rao: Justice Rao emphasized the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence in this case. Despite the lack of a direct ‘last seen’ identification, the prosecution had successfully established the chain of events, including the motive, the confession, and the recovery of crucial evidence.

Key Testimonies:

Kuldeep Singh (PW-13): Son-in-law of the deceased, Kuldeep Singh testified about the strained relationship between Surjit Kaur and her son Avtar Singh, which served as a motive for the murder. He also identified the deceased’s body.
Bhupinder Singh (PW-16): Bhupinder Singh provided crucial evidence through the extra-judicial confessions made by the accused. He testified that Swaran Kaur, Jagmohan Singh, and Darshan Singh confessed to the crime and detailed how they killed Surjit Kaur.
Harpal Singh (PW-11): The Sarpanch of Village Sahauran, Harpal Singh, testified about the grievance Surjit Kaur had raised regarding the non-payment of lease money and her complaint against Avtar Singh.

The Investigation and Recovery:

The police conducted a thorough investigation, leading to the recovery of significant evidence, including a telephone diary with contacts that helped identify the deceased’s family, and a bottle of acid which had been used to disfigure the deceased’s face. The accused’s confessions were corroborated by the recovery of a folding iron chair, which matched the description of the weapon used in the crime.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the arguments, evidence, and confessions, found no merit in the appellants’ appeal. The conviction was upheld, and the appellants were directed to surrender to serve their remaining sentence. The Court emphasized the role of circumstantial evidence, including the extra-judicial confession, in proving the guilt of the accused.

Final Judgment:

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellants for the murder of Surjit Kaur was upheld. The appellants, Darshan Singh and Jagmohan Singh, were ordered to surrender and serve the remaining sentence.

Petitioner Name: Darshan Singh.
Respondent Name: State of Punjab.
Judgment By: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice Nageswara Rao.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 06-12-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 06-12-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category