A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case examines the conviction of Kirpal Singh under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment of five years, respectively, for the murder of Balwinder Singh and an attempted murder of the first informant, Sharan Kaur. However, inconsistencies in evidence, including contradictory witness statements, unreliable testimonies, and lack of corroboration, led the Supreme Court to acquit the appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt. The case emphasizes the principle of assessing witness reliability and corroborative evidence in criminal trials.

Keywords: Murder, Attempt to murder, Wholly unreliable witness, Credibility of deposition, Contradictions in testimony.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 1052 of 2009

iii) Judgment Date:
18 April 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

vi) Author:
Justice Sandeep Mehta

vii) Citation:
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 707 : 2024 INSC 312

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 307
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 319

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case Related to Which Law Subjects:

• Criminal Law
• Evidence Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case arises from the conviction of Kirpal Singh by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the trial court for the murder of Balwinder Singh and the attempted murder of Sharan Kaur. The prosecution alleged that the motive was business rivalry between the appellant and the deceased. However, the defense argued the implausibility of the prosecution’s narrative and raised serious doubts about the credibility of its key witnesses, resulting in an appeal to the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

• Incident:
  On the night of November 12-13, 1997, Balwinder Singh slept in the upper floor (chaubara) of his house, while his wife, Sharan Kaur, and their children slept downstairs. At approximately 2:30 AM, Sharan Kaur opened the door upon hearing a knock, believing it to be her husband. Instead, she saw Kirpal Singh armed with a knife. He allegedly stabbed her in the abdomen while an unidentified accomplice restrained her arm.

• Murder of Balwinder Singh:
  Sharan Kaur alleged that after attacking her, the appellant fled upstairs and fatally attacked Balwinder Singh. The victim succumbed to his injuries en route to the hospital.

• Motive:
  The prosecution claimed the accused bore jealousy over the deceased’s flourishing halwai business.

• Investigation and Trial:
  The trial court convicted Kirpal Singh under Sections 302 and 307, sentencing him to life imprisonment and five years of rigorous imprisonment. Kulwinder Singh, the alleged accomplice, was acquitted. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the conviction.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Reliability of Witness Testimony:
   Whether the evidence of Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh was credible and sufficient for conviction.

2. Motive:
   Whether jealousy over business success was a valid and corroborated motive for the crime.

3. Procedural Flaws:
   Whether the investigation was biased and tainted, as alleged by the defense.

4. Burden of Proof:
   Whether the prosecution had discharged its burden beyond reasonable doubt.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Unreliable Witnesses:
   The counsel argued that the testimonies of Sharan Kaur (PW-5) and Daljit Singh (PW-6) were inconsistent and untrustworthy. They pointed out several contradictions and omissions.

2. Weak Motive:
   The alleged motive of business rivalry was vague and unsupported by any corroborative evidence.

3. Investigative Bias:
   The defense highlighted that earlier investigations had found the allegations false, and two closure reports were submitted before the trial commenced.

4. Implausibility of Events:
   The appellant’s counsel contended that the accused’s alleged actions (climbing a ladder, attacking, and alarming the family) were implausible and inconsistent with common behavior.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Eyewitness Account:
   The State relied heavily on the testimony of Sharan Kaur, arguing that it was consistent with the FIR.

2. Principle of Separation of Evidence:
   The State argued that even if Kulwinder Singh was acquitted, it did not invalidate the evidence against Kirpal Singh.

3. Minor Contradictions:
   The State contended that minor inconsistencies in witness statements did not undermine the overall truthfulness of the prosecution’s case.

H) JUDGMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Witness Credibility:
   The Court held that the testimonies of Sharan Kaur and Daljit Singh were riddled with contradictions, omissions, and improbabilities. Both were deemed unreliable.

2. Lack of Corroboration:
   The alleged motive lacked independent evidence, and no forensic or physical evidence connected the appellant to the crime.

3. Flaws in Investigation:
   The investigation suffered from procedural lapses, undermining the prosecution’s case.

b. OBITER DICTA (if any):
The Court reiterated the principle from Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] 1 SCR 981: testimony must be assessed for reliability, and corroboration is essential when witnesses are unreliable.

c. GUIDELINES (if any):

• The Court underscored the need for meticulous scrutiny of evidence when witness reliability is in question.
• It reaffirmed that benefit of doubt must go to the accused if the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases. The decision to acquit the appellant underlines the principle of granting benefit of doubt in the absence of reliable and convincing evidence. The case also underscores the judiciary’s vigilance against procedural flaws and the reliance on wholly unreliable witnesses.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

1. Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] 1 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614

Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 307
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 319