State of Punjab Vs.
Gurdip Kaur [2008] INSC 1800 (21 October 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1063 OF 2003 STATE
OF PUNJAB ... Appellant(s) Versus GURDIP KAUR ... Respondent(s)
Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
Challenge is this
appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court of Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal of the respondent. Two appeals
were filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 169-DB of 1995 and
Criminal Appeal No. 328-DB of 1995. Both the appeals were directed against the
judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda holding that each of the accused
persons were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The two appellants in the
two Criminal Appeals before the High Court faced trial along with one Bant
Singh who was acquitted by the trial court.
Detailed reference to
the factual position is not necessary in view of the conclusions of the High
Court in the two appeals. Firstly it was recorded that there was considerable
delay in lodging the first information report and secondly there was
considerable unexplained delay in sending the report to the Elaka Magistrate. It
was concluded by the High Court that these factors apart from the fact that the
evidence of the so called eye-witness was not credible and cogent, the medical
evidence was clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecution
version unsustainable.
Learned counsel for
the appellant -State submitted that the factors which have weighed with the
High Court to direct acquittal cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the
respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment.
Though it cannot be
said as a rule of universal application that whenever there is delay in lodging
the FIR and/or there is delay in dispatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate
and/or the medical evidence is at some variance with the ocular evidence the
prosecution has to fail, in the instant case the combined effect of the above
factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the
accusations. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and we do not
consider this appeal to be a fit case where any interference is called for.
-3- The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
....................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
....................J.
(C.K.THAKKER)
....................J.
(LOKESHWAR SINGH
PANTA) New Delhi, October 21, 2008.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1064 OF 2003 STATE
OF PUNJAB ... Appellant(s) Versus AVTAR SINGH ... Respondent(s)
Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
Challenge is this
appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court of Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal of the respondent.
Two appeals were
filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 169-DB of 1995 and
Criminal Appeal No. 328-DB of 1995. Both the appeals were directed against the
judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda holding that each of the accused
persons were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The two appellants in the
two connected appeals faced trial along with one Bant Singh who was acquitted
by the trial Court. Detailed reference to the factual position is not necessary
in view of the conclusions of the High Court in the two appeals.
-2- Firstly it was
submitted that there was considerable delay in lodging the first information
report and secondly there was considerable unexplained delay in sending the
report to the Elaka Magistrate. It was concluded by the High Court that these
factors apart from the fact that the evidence of the so called eye-witness was
not credible and cogent and also the medical evidence was clearly at variance
with the ocular version rendered prosecution version vulnerable.
Learned counsel for
the appellant-State submitted that the factors which have weighed with the High
Court to direct acquittal cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the
respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment.
Though it cannot be
laid as a rule of universal application that whenever there is delay in lodging
the FIR and/or there is delay in despatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate
and/or the medical evidence is at some variance with the ocular evidence. The
prosecution has to fail in the instant case the combined effect of the three
factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the
accusations. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and we do not
consider this to be a fit case where any interference is called for.
-3- The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
....................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
....................J.
(C.K.THAKKER)
....................J.
(LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)
New
Delhi,
October
21, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2