Q. What are the equivalent citations for Gian Singh vs State of Punjab ?

The equivalence citation are1987 CRILJ 1918 ; AIR 1987 SC 1921 ; LQ/SC/1986/383 ;

Gian Singh Vs. State Of Punjab On 14 October, 1986

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Gian Singh vs State of Punjab?

HONBLE JUSTICE K. N. SINGH, HONBLE JUSTICE M. P. THAKKAR

Open iDraf

Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab

Gian Singh
v.
State Of Punjab

(Supreme Court Of India)

Criminal Appeal No. 221 Of 1984 | 14-10-1986

1. The appellant has been found guilty of the murder of his uncle Hardit Singh. The conviction has been built on circumstantial evidence which the trial court as well as the High Court have considered sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant. The evidence of PW 4 Des Raj who was working in his field at about 5 or 5.30 p. m. shows he had seen the deceased going on a cycle towards Burj Raike with a "jhola". He had witnessed appellant, Buta Singh and Avtar Singh having a quarrel with the deceased. The appellant had a kirpan with him at that time. The evidence of PW 5 Jagdev Singh shows that at about 7 p. m. when he was returning to his home from his fields he had seen appellant Gian Singh armed with a kirpan and holding a cycle in his hand. When PW 4 saw the appellant he had no cycle. When PW 5 saw him later on, he had a cycle. There is also evidence regarding the recovery made at the instance of the appellant. The cycle which has been proved to be the cycle belonging to the deceased was recovered in the wake of the disclosure statement made by the appellant. A kirpan, a shirt, a pajama and a small stick were also recovered at the instance of the appellant. The evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 which has been accepted by the trial court and the High Court establishes that the deceased was last seen with the appellant. He was seen with a cycle later on though he did not have one when PW 4 saw him. The evidence pertaining to the recovery of the cycle belonging to the deceased in view of his disclosure statement lends strength to the prosecution case. It has been further reinforced by the evidence showing that the appellant was absconding for 13 days. Both the courts have considered the circumstantial evidence and have recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant on being satisfied that the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. We do not see any justification for interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court.

2. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.

Advocates List

For

Bench List

HON'BLE JUSTICE K. N. SINGH

HON'BLE JUSTICE M. P. THAKKAR

Eq Citation

1987 CRILJ 1918

AIR 1987 SC 1921

LQ/SC/1986/383

HeadNote

- In a circumstantial evidence case, the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court convicting the appellant of murdering his uncle. - PW4 witnessed a quarrel between the deceased, appellant, Buta Singh, and Avtar Singh. PW5 saw the appellant armed with a kirpan and holding the deceased's cycle. - The appellant's disclosure statement led to the recovery of the deceased's cycle, kirpan, shirt, pajama, and a small stick. - The appellant's absconding for 13 days further strengthened the prosecution case. - The Supreme Court found no justification for interfering with the concurrent findings of guilt, and dismissed the appeal.