Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
J. S. Sekhon and A. S. Nehra, JJ.
Pritam Singh - Appellants
Versus
The State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 287-DB of 1992.
Decided On : 2 August, 1993
CRIMINAL APPEAL - DOWRY DEATH - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 113A AND 113B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 1986 - TRIAL OF JUVENILE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murdering Daljit Kaur, the wife of one of the appellants, by causing electric shock to her. The prosecution alleged that the appellants killed Daljit Kaur due to dowry harassment. The appellants denied the allegations and claimed that Daljit Kaur died due to an accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecution failed to explain the delay. The court also found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court further found that two of the appellants, Lakhvinder Kaur and Rajbinder Kaur, were juveniles at the time of the alleged offence and their trial should have been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR rendered the prosecution case unreliable? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? 3. Whether the trial of Lakhvinder Kaur and Rajbinder Kaur, who were juveniles at the time of the alleged offence, was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained and it rendered the prosecution case unreliable. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 2 SCC 426, which held that "an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR creates a doubt about the genuineness and veracity of the prosecution case". 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable and there were several contradictions in their statements. The court also found that the motive alleged by the prosecution was not established. 3. The court held that the trial of Lakhvinder Kaur and Rajbinder Kaur, who were juveniles at the time of the alleged offence, was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 6 SCC 1, which held that "the trial of a juvenile shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, and not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973".
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to the appellants, and acquitted them of the charges.
J. S. Nehra, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.5.1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by which Pritam Singh, Manjit Kaur, Lakhvinder Kaur Land Rajbinder Kaur have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows :
3. Daljit Kaur daughter of Joginder Singh complainant was married with Narinder Singh son of Pritam Singh appellant. The husband and other members of his family were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage of Daljit Kaur and they started maltreating her and asking her to bring more dowry. One month prior to her death the complainant supplied one T.V., one Refrigerator and one she-buffalo to the in-laws of Daljit Kaur. On 18.5.1990 complainant Joginder Singh and his son Amrik Singh went to her in-laws house to meet her. After taking dinner they slept in the courtyard. At about 9/10 P.M. they heard shrieks from the room where Daljit Kaur had been dragged in by all the four appellants and the appellants had bolted the door from inside. The complainant and Amrik Singh knocked at the door but it was not opened by the appellants. They heard the shrieks of Daljit Kaur from inside the room and they raised alarm. Thereafter all the appellants opened the door and fled away. Daljit Kaur was found lying on the ground inside the room and she was struggling for life. Electric wire was lying near her. Daljit Kaur died. During the night complainant and his son Amrik Singh remained near the dead body of Daljit Kaur and on the next day i.e. 19.5.90 Joginder Singh left Amrik Singh at the spot and he took Karam Singh from his village Chochla Sahab and was going to lodge the report with the police when the police met them at the turning of village Gandiwind. The police recorded the statement of the complainant, which is Ex.PD and on the basis thereof formal F.I.R. Ex.P.E. was recorded. The police accompanied the complainant to the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. Dead body was identified by Joginder Singh and Karam Singh. Injury statement was also prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The police took into possession the electric wire. After the post-mortem examination the police took into possession the clothes of the deceased. The appellants were arrested on 20.6.1990 and after completing the investigation they were challaned and sent up for trial to the Court.
4. The prosecution examined Dr. Viney Kumar Azad as PW1, Shri Rishi Ram Draftsman, as PW 2, Shri Sukhdev Singh Ahalmad, as PW4, Karam Singh as PW5, Randhir Singh Sarpanch as P.W.6., Charan Singh as PW7, Joginder Singh complainant as PW8, Amrik Singh as PW9, Raj Kumar as PW10, C. Sewa Singh as PW11, C. Jaswinder Singh as PW12 and A.S.I. Shangara Singh as PW13. PWs Mohinder Singh A.S.I. Inspector Surinder Singh and Fauja Singh H.C. were given up as unnecessary. The prosecution closed its evidence after tendering into evidence affidavit Ex.PW3/A of C. Sukhchain Singh.
5. In their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the appellants admitted that Daljit Kaur was married with Narinder Singh son of Pritam Singh appellant. It was also admitted that Manjit Kaur appellant is the wife of Pritam Singh appellant while appellant Lakhvinder Kaur and Rajbinder kaur are the daughters of Pritam Singh appellant. Remaining allegations of the prosecution were denied and the appellants claimed to be innocent. They also filed their written statements wherein appellant Manjit Kaur, Rajbinder Kaur and Lakhwinder Kaur denied their presence in the house at the time of occurrence and to have demanded dowry. Pritam Singh appellant stated that they had cordial relations with Daljit Kaur and they never harassed her or demanded dowry. According to him, Daljit Kaur used to sleep in the room with electric fan on and that his wife, son and daughters were not pr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
