Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed the conviction of Bhupinder Singh in a case involving the double murder of his mother-in-law and brother-in-law. While dismissing Singh’s appeal, the Court partially allowed an appeal by the complainant, Navdeep Kaur, enhancing fines under the Arms Act and directing their disbursement as victim compensation. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeeti Sharma ruled that the prosecution had proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt through a robust combination of eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and recoveries made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Bhupinder Singh, the appellant, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, for murdering Surinder Kaur and Lovepreet Singh on June 2, 2012. According to the prosecution, Singh shot the victims following an altercation outside his house in Miani. Navdeep Kaur, Singh's wife and an eyewitness to the incident, testified that he fired multiple shots using a .32-bore revolver, killing both victims. Despite his initial surrender, Singh denied the charges, alleging a false implication.

The trial court sentenced Singh to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, along with additional sentences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. His appeal sought to overturn the conviction, while the complainant appealed for enhancement of the sentence and fines.

The Court placed significant reliance on Navdeep Kaur's testimony (PW-3) and Malkiat Singh (PW-2), both eyewitnesses. Justice Thakur noted:

“The deposition of PW-3 aligns seamlessly with her contemporaneously recorded statement under Section 161 CrPC. Her account is corroborated by PW-2, an independent witness, making it immune to the defense’s claims of fabrication.”

Navdeep Kaur recounted how her mother and brother were shot at close range, with detailed descriptions that matched medical findings. The Court rejected defense claims that her testimony was inconsistent, stating:

“Minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts do not undermine their reliability when the core narrative remains intact and is corroborated by forensic evidence.”

Forensic analysis played a pivotal role in corroborating the prosecution's case. Dr. Vinay Sharma (PW-1) conducted autopsies on the victims, documenting entry and exit wounds consistent with close-range gunfire. The post-mortem findings were supported by ballistic evidence.

The .32-bore revolver recovered on Singh’s disclosure was found to have been recently fired. The ballistic expert confirmed that cartridges retrieved from the crime scene matched those fired from the weapon. Addressing the defense's challenge regarding unexamined cartridges, the Court held:

“A forensic report's inability to match every cartridge does not dilute the evidentiary value of proven links between the weapon, ammunition, and injuries.”

Singh’s signed disclosure statement led to the recovery of the revolver and ammunition buried near his ancestral grave. Justice Thakur observed:

“Section 27 of the Evidence Act grants admissibility to recoveries made based on an accused’s exclusive knowledge. The recovery corroborates both the eyewitness account and forensic findings.”

The defense argued that the prosecution failed to establish a motive. However, the Court clarified:

“Proof of motive, while relevant in circumstantial cases, is not indispensable when direct evidence, such as credible eyewitness testimony, establishes guilt beyond doubt.”

The High Court upheld the life sentence and fines imposed under IPC Section 302 but enhanced fines under the Arms Act to Rs. 50,000 each, directing the amounts to be disbursed as compensation to the victims’ family. It rejected the complainant’s plea for capital punishment, reasoning:

“The case, while grave, does not fall into the rarest of rare category warranting the death penalty.”

This judgment reinforces the judicial emphasis on the interplay between eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence in criminal trials. By upholding the conviction and enhancing victim compensation, the High Court has ensured both accountability and justice.

Date of Decision: November 20, 2024