1999 INSC 0620
                                                     Balbir Singh

                                                           Vs

                                                   State of Punjab

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 1998

                                        (G. T. Nanavati, S. N. Phukan JJ)

                                                      19.08.1999

                                                     JUDGMENT

G.T. Nanavati, J. ­

1. The appellant had married Sukhwinder Kaur (the deceased) about four years before the date of
incident which took place on 10.12.1990. The prosecution case was that neither the appellant nor
other family members liked Sukhwinder Kaur and all of them had desired that she should die so that
the appellant can marry again. It was also the prosecution case that on 10.12.1990, the appellant
gave some tablets to Dhan Kaur, his mother, for giving them to Sukhwinder Kaur who was not
feeling well. As a result of taking those tablets she became restless and was required to be taken to
Civil hospital at Barnala on the same day in the evening. On being informed about the condition of
Sukhwinder Kaur, the police had gone to the hospital and recorded her statement (Exhibit PW 8/B)
and on the basis thereof an offence was registered under Section 304-B I.P.C. against the appellant
and Dhan Kaur. Her dying declaration was also got recorded through a Judicial Magistrate on
11.12.1990 when she was in the hospital at Ludhiana. Sukhwinder Kaur expired on 12.12.1990 and
the offence, which was earlier registered under Section 304-B IPC was converted into an offence
under Section 302 IPC.

2. The appellant and Dhan Kaur were than charge-sheeted and tried for the offence punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and in the alternative under Section 304-B read with Section
34 IPC. The Trial Court convicted both under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They
challenged their conviction by filing an appeal in the High Court but the same was dismissed. The
present appeal is filed by Balbir Singh, the husband, and he is challenging his conviction on the
ground that he could not have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on the
basis of the evidence led in this case.

3. The only evidence against the appellant was an extra judicial confession stated to have been made
by the appellant before the Sarpanch of the village, the dying declaration of Sukhwinder Kaur
recorded by the Police on 10.12.1990 and the dying declaration recorded by the judicial Magistrate
on 11.12.1990. Both the Trial Court and the High Court relied upon the two dying declarations and
also the extra judicial confession for the purpose of convicting the accused. It was submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have committed a grave error in relying
upon the extra judicial confession as it was highly improbable that in absence of any relationship
with the sarpanch or for any other good reason, the appellant would have gone to the Sarpanch and
confessed that he had purchased the poisonous tablets which led to the death of Sukhwinder Kaur. If
what the Sarpanch has deposed was really true, the investigating officer would have then tried to
find out from whose shop the tablets were purchased. No such attempt was made. The evidence of
Sarpanch is not such as could have been accepted without any independent corroboration. Even the
trial Court and the High Court have not considered the said extra judicial confession as sufficient to
prove the guilt of the appellant. It has been regarded as a piece of evidence furnishing independent
corroboration to the dying declarations. An extra judicial confession even if believed is considered a
very week piece of evidence and ordinarily is not accepted without independent corroboration. In
this case, it was of a doubtful character and therefore it was wrong to rely upon it and hold that it
afforded good corroboration to the dying declarations.

4. The two dying declarations are also not consistent as regards the part played by the appellant. In
the First Information Report-cum-Dying declaration, Sukhwinder Kaur had stated that on
10.12.1990 both the appellant and Dhan Kaur had administered tablets to her. When that statement
is scrutinised carefully it becomes apparent that what Sukhwinder Kaur had stated against the
appellant was by way of an inference and not as a statement of fact because in that statement itself
she had stated that the tablets were given to her by Dhan Kaur and it was Dhan Kaur who had
forced her to take those tablets. Moreover, in the second dying declaration Sukhwinder Kaur had not
stated a word against her husband as regards giving of tablets to her. In that dying declaration she
referred only to Dhan Kaur as the person who had given tablets to her. Thus, there was not clear and
sufficient evidence against the appellant to warrant his conviction under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC. In our opinion Courts below were not justified in holding him guilty for the offence
of murder.

5. We, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the judgments of the courts below and also the order of
conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.