SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(P&H) 442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Criminal Appeal No. 557-DB of 2010
Manpreet Kaur
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 22/03/2012}

Advocates:
For the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010:Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate.
For the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.583-DB of 2010:Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.S. Sangha, Advocate.
For the State of Punjab:Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General.
For the Complainant Criminal Appeal No.1208-DB of 2010:Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate.

Murder--illicit relation--Proof of--As a general rule, it is nearly impossible for the prosecution to collect direct evidence of an illicit relationship and, therefore, court has to rely upon statements of witnesses

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302--Murder--illicit relation--Proof of--Mother administered poison to her two children in conspiracy with her lover--Contention there is no proof of illicit relationship--Rejected--Held; An illicit relationship is generally concealed from public gaze and only a few, are aware of such a fact, and generally tend to suppress this fact to protect family honour for fear of societal disapproval--As a general rule, it is nearly impossible for the prosecution to collect direct evidence of an illicit relationship and, therefore, court has to rely upon statements of witnesses--It is for a court to weigh the evidence and thereafter conclude whether the statements are sufficiently credible to raise inference of an illicit relationship--Conviction upheld. (Para 22)

       (B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302--Murder--Extra Judicial Confession--Contention that to whom accused made confession was previous convict, therefore his evidence should be discarded--Rejected--Held; Fact that he was a previous conduct, does not lead to an inference that he is a procured witness--No evidence that he had not disclosed the truth--No reason for him to depose against the accused as he has no previous enmity and he was closely related to both deceased and accused--Evidence Act, 1872, S.21. (Para 24)

       (C) Indian Penal Code, 1908, S.302--Murder--Burden of Proof--Accused (Mother) administered poison to her two minor children in conspiracy with her lover--Children were in her custody, it was for her to explain as to in what manner, the children consumed poison or were administered poison--Contradictory stand of accused that children may have been poisoned accidentally and that they were poisoned by complainant, clearly proves that children were poisoned by accused--Conviction sentence of life imprisonment upheld--Evidence Act, 1872, S.106. (Para 25 & 26)

       (D) Indian Penal Code, 1908, S.302--Murder--Person administered to minor children--Conspiracy by complainant--Contention that father of complainant executed a will in favour of complainant, therefore the engineered the murder of accused's husband and children to inherent property--Rejected--Held; if will had been executed in favour of complaint, there was no reason for him to plan the murder, as contended, as he would have inherited the property as demise of his father. (Para 21)

       

JUDGMENT

Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J.: - By way of this order, we shall dispose of three Criminal Appeals No.557-DB and 583-DB of 2010 challenging order of conviction and sentence filed by the accused and Criminal Appeal No. 1208-DB of 2010 filed by the complainant praying for enhancement of the sentence.

2. Manpreet Kaur, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 challenges her conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of her two minor children, namely, Narinderpal and Anmol, whereas Binder Kumar, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 583-DB of 2010, challenges his conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo two separate life imprisonments for causing the death of two minor children, Narinderpal and Anmol, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each for each death. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. On 23.7.2005, a message was received in Police Station Talwandi Sabo that dead bodies of two children, Narinderpal and Anmol, have been received at Civil Hospital, Mansa. The police party left for Civil Hospital, Mansa, where they met Surjit Singh son of Jati Ram, who made statement dated 23.7.2005, Ex.PA, to the effect that Harjit Singh @ Happy son of Ram Sarup died four days ago. Harjit Singh had two sons Narinderpal, aged 08 years and Anmol, aged about 02 years. The ashes of Harjit Singh were collected on 23.7.2005. Kanta Devi wife of Krishan Kumar, Anita wife of Janak Raj, sisters of Manpreet Kaur widow of Harjit Singh and Binder Kumar son of Satish Kumar, came to the village to pay condolence. Kanta Devi, Anita, Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar said that as Manpreet Kaur is quite young, she should get remarried after getting rid of her children. It is further stated that at about 2.00 P.M on 23.7.2005, he and his mother went to the house of Manpreet Kaur, where his nephew Narinderpal told them that they (the children) have been vomiting as their mother Manpreet Kaur has administered some poisonous substance to them. Narinderpal and Anmol became unconscious. The complainant arranged for a vehicle and removed Narinderpal and Anmol to Guru Nanak Children Hospital, Mansa, where both children passed away. The complainant alleged that Manpreet Kaur had poisoned her children in connivance with her sisters Kanta Devi, Anita and her paramour Binder Kumar, with whom she has illicit relations. His statement, Ex.PA, was reduced into writing by Balbir Singh, SHO, Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda on 23.7.2005; and forwarded to Police Station Talwandi Sabo that led to registration of FIR, Ex.PA/2. After registration of FIR, the police began investigation by sending the dead bodies of children for post mortem examination. The police recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the appellants, visited the place of occurrence, collected a vial containing poison, pursuant to disclosure statement made by Manpreet Kaur and after recording the extra-judicial confessions of Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar, made before Surinder Kumar @ Bala, opinion of the doctor based upon report of the Chemical Examiner that the cause of death was poisoning with a choloro compound bound poison, filed challan under sections 302/201/34 IPC against Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar only, but found Smt. Kanta Devi and Anita innocent during investigation. The Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bathinda, on 5.10.2005.

4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against Manpreet Kaur under sections 302 and 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, but against Binder Kumar charges were framed under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During trial and pursuant to order dated 31.5.2006, passed on the application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Smt.



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top