Punjab and Haryana High Court Affirms Life Sentence for Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha in ASI Sube Singh Murder Case

Circumstantial Evidence, Last-Seen Theory, and Forensic Evidence Form Key Pillars in Affirming Conviction - Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a detailed judgment, dismissed appeals concerning the murder trial of ASI Sube Singh. The appeals included a challenge by Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha to his conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, and a cross-appeal by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of two co-accused, Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh (son of Jagdev Singh). The court, presided over by Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudeepthi Sharma, upheld Sukhwinder Singh's life imprisonment and rejected the State's challenge to the acquittal of the co-accused, emphasizing gaps in the prosecution's evidence against the latter.

"Last-Seen Theory Credibly Proven by Eyewitnesses PW-19 and PW-20"

The court found the last-seen theory to be a critical link in the circumstantial evidence against Sukhwinder Singh. PW-19 (Constable Het Ram) and PW-20 (Constable Rajpal) testified that they saw the deceased, ASI Sube Singh, leaving with Sukhwinder Singh and co-accused Gurveer Singh @ Goga on the night of the murder. The court observed:

“The testimonies of PW-19 and PW-20 remained unshaken during cross-examination, firmly establishing the theory of last-seen together. The identification of Sukhwinder Singh and Gurveer Singh in court further solidified their culpability.” [Paras 19-23]

The court rejected the defense's argument of discrepancies, noting that the witnesses identified the accused in court without the necessity of prior test identification parades.

"Disclosure Statement and Recovery of Weapon Valid Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act"

The judgment emphasized the admissibility and reliability of the recovery of the weapon of offense—a .12 bore gun—pursuant to Sukhwinder Singh's disclosure statement. Justice Thakur remarked:

“Pursuant to the signatured disclosure statement, the recovery of a .12 bore gun and its broken butt with a nut bolt, bearing serial number 1943-81, was made. Forensic analysis confirmed that the recovered weapon was used in the commission of the offense. The recovery corroborates the prosecution’s case under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.” [Paras 25-31, 41-43]

The court relied on the precedent of Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor and recent rulings in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) and Perumal Raja v. State (2024) to reinforce the evidentiary value of disclosure statements leading to discoveries.

"Forensic and Medical Evidence: A Crucial Corroborative Link"

The forensic and medical evidence provided compelling support to the prosecution’s case. The post-mortem report (Ex. PSS) by Dr. Bharat Bhushan (PW-23) confirmed that the cause of death was a skull fracture caused by a gun butt, consistent with injuries inflicted by the recovered weapon. The court noted:

“The ballistic report (Ex. PTT) established that the .12 bore fired cartridge case matched the recovered gun. This finding, along with the recovery of blood-stained evidence and corroboration from the FSL reports (Ex. PUU and Ex. PVV), strengthens the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.” [Paras 44-50, 51-53]

The defense's contention that there was a discrepancy in the height of the deceased was dismissed as immaterial, with the court emphasizing the consistency of medical evidence.

"Acquittal of Co-Accused: Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt"

In contrast, the court found no merit in the State’s appeal challenging the acquittal of co-accused Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh (son of Jagdev Singh). The prosecution failed to conclusively identify them as participants in the crime. The court observed:

“The prosecution witnesses failed to identify Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh (son of Jagdev Singh) in court. Further, no test identification parade was conducted, and the witnesses misidentified one of the accused. Recovery of clothes from Rajdeep was from an open area, and no matching shoe molds were found for both accused. These factors weaken the prosecution’s case against the acquitted individuals.” [Paras 66-68]

The court dismissed both appeals, affirming the trial court’s conviction of Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha and the acquittal of the co-accused. It directed the convicting court to ensure the execution of Sukhwinder Singh's life sentence.

The judgment reinforces the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence and corroborative forensic analysis in cases lacking direct eyewitness accounts. While it upholds the conviction of the principal accused based on a robust chain of evidence, it highlights the necessity of conclusive identification and credible recovery processes to sustain convictions against co-accused.

Date of Decision: January 7, 2025