Oral Dying Declaration, Last Seen Evidence, and Forensic Link Complete the Chain—Conviction Upheld: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Life Sentence for Murder

Extra-Judicial Confession Against Co-Accused Is a Weak Link—Acquittal of Co-Accused Justified Despite Motive - Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant ruling concerning murder committed to silence a witness in a prior fratricide, affirming the life imprisonment of two accused, while upholding the acquittal of the third, Santro. A Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi dismissed the criminal appeal filed by convicts Lachhman and Chand Singh and rejected the State’s appeal against Santro’s acquittal.

The Court declared: “Oral dying declaration, corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, is sufficient to sustain a conviction when supported by a consistent chain of circumstances.”

“He Took My Son to the Fields, Came Back to Say He Was Shot—And Then Disappeared”: The Murder of Sanjay

The case involved the murder of Sanjay, whose father Hukam Chand alleged that Lachhman, a friend of his elder son Chand Singh, forcibly took Sanjay to the fields on the night of 31.01.2001. A few hours later, Lachhman returned to the house claiming Sanjay had sustained bullet injuries, but refused to answer questions and left.

When the family rushed to the fields, Sanjay, lying near a watercourse, made a chilling statement: “Lachhman has shot me.”

He succumbed to his injuries on the way back. This oral dying declaration was given before his father and cousin, who became key witnesses.

“The Dying Declaration Is Natural, Spontaneous and Corroborated—Delay in FIR Is Nominal and Explained”

The FIR was lodged promptly—less than four hours after the occurrence. The Court ruled: “The statement made to the police at 1:15 AM and the special report reaching the Magistrate at 8:45 AM rules out embellishment. This supports the credibility of the complainant's version.”

Medical evidence corroborated the nature and timing of the bullet injury, aligning with the time Sanjay allegedly gave the dying declaration.

The Bench noted: “The deceased was certainly in a state of mind to make the declaration, and the testimony of PW10 and PW11 is cogent and reliable.”

“Weapon Recovered on Disclosure—Forensic Report Links the Pistol to the Crime”

Lachhman, upon arrest, made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the pistol, two live cartridges, and one spent cartridge. Forensic testing confirmed: “The empty cartridge recovered was fired from the same pistol seized from Lachhman.”

The Court held that this scientific linkage strengthens the prosecution case, providing corroborative evidence to the oral dying declaration and last seen testimony.

“Extra-Judicial Confession Cannot Be Used Against Co-Accused—Conspiracy Not Proven Against Chand Singh”

A key issue was whether Chand Singh, who had previously murdered another brother, Anand, and was absconding, had conspired with Lachhman to eliminate Sanjay, a witness in that earlier case.

The prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession made by Lachhman to Mohinder Singh (PW13)—a relative of the deceased—where Lachhman allegedly stated that Chand Singh gave him the pistol and coerced him to kill.

However, the Court was clear: “Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, especially when made to a close relative of the complainant and when not corroborated.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bhajan Singh and Paltan Mallah, the Bench held: “Such a confession is not substantive evidence and cannot be used to convict a co-accused in the absence of independent corroboration.”

As there was no direct evidence, no recovery, and no credible witness linking Chand Singh to the actual commission or planning, the Court found: “Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof—Chand Singh’s conviction cannot be based solely on motive and a third-party confession.”

“Santro's Acquittal Proper—Conversation Heard by Relative Was Vague and Unreliable”

The State also appealed against the acquittal of Santro, wife of Chand Singh. A relative, Sheela (PW15), claimed to have overheard Santro telling Lachhman at court that he should “do the job” for Chand Singh. But the Court noted: “Such a vague statement, heard in passing and interpreted only in hindsight, cannot establish conspiracy.”

The Bench ruled: “Witnesses closely related to the complainant party can easily be procured. The alleged conversation doesn’t even specify what the ‘job’ was. Acquittal is justified.”

Lachhman’s Conviction Upheld, Chand Singh Acquitted, Santro’s Acquittal Affirmed

Summing up, the High Court affirmed the life sentence of Lachhman, upheld the forensic and testimonial evidence against him, but found the case weak against Chand Singh, relying solely on motive and extra-judicial confession. As per well-established criminal law principles, this was held insufficient.

The Court concluded: “The chain of circumstances is complete only against Lachhman. Against Chand Singh and Santro, the links are speculative and unproven. Conviction in such cases would be a miscarriage of justice.”

Date of Decision: 17 March 2025