IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sureshwar Thakur, N.S.Shekhawat, JJ.
Surinder Pal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-D-2-DB-2010 (O&M)
Decided On : 26-08-2022
IPC - Murder - Section 302, Section 201 - The court discussed the testimonies of the witnesses and the recovery of the 'Danda' to determine the guilt of the accused. The court found serious infirmities in the prosecution's case and held that no reliance could be placed on the prosecution witnesses to hold the appellant guilty. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that the death was homicidal and that the recovery of the 'Danda' did not connect the accused with the commission of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for the murder of his daughter. The prosecution's case was based on the testimonies of witnesses and the recovery of a 'Danda' allegedly used in the crime. The trial court found the appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious infirmities in the prosecution's case and held that no reliance could be placed on the prosecution witnesses to hold the appellant guilty. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that the death was homicidal and that the recovery of the 'Danda' did not connect the accused with the commission of the crime.
Issues: The reliability of prosecution witnesses, the nature of the death, and the connection of the accused with the crime were the key issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for legal, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence to convict an accused. It also highlighted the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in serious offences.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the charges and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT
N.S.Shekhawat, J. - Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/30.10.2009, passed by the Court of Sessions, Jalandhar, whereby the appellant was held guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 302 of IPC, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 201 of IPC, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/30.10.2009 and to acquit him of the charges.
2. In the instant case, the law was set in motion with the recording of the statement of Shakuntla w/o the appellant (Ex.PA) and the same is reproduced below:-
' It is stated that I am resident of aforesaid address and am doing labour work. I have four sons and three daughters. The name of my elder daughter was Gurpreet Kaur, who was aged about 16 years. My husband Surinder Pal is an habitual drinker and is an idle. I used to earn our livelihood by doing labour work alongwith my daughters. On 08.09.08 at about 2.30 p.m. I alongwith my daughters Gurpreet Kaur and Amandeep Kaur had gone to the fields of Kulwinder Ram son of Ram Krishan resident of Raipur for cutting fodder from the land which is situated near our village and we had returned to our house in the evening at about 6.00 p.m. after cutting the fodder. On return to the house, I saw that my husband, Surinder Pal had purchased a bottle of liquor after selling the wheat and was consuming the same. I restrained him from taking liquor but he started giving me beating. My elder daughter Gurpreet Kaur after lifting a stick (Danda) gave its blow on the flank of my husband and asked him as to why he is beating my mother. My husband after leaving me started giving beating to my daughter with stick and due to fear, she entered inside and my husband chased her and started giving beating to my daughter and throttled her neck and Gurpreet Kaur died at the spot. I started weeping loudly. Then my husband Surinder Pal threatened me and my children if you raised shouting or narrated this occurrence to any body then he will also treat them like Gurpreet Kaur. I along with my children passed the night while sitting and weeping out of fear. In the morning, my husband told the neighbourers that Gurpreet Kaur had died due to heart attack. This incident was then widely known in the village and many people gathered there. At about 8.00 p.m. in the morning when Gurpreet Kaur was being bathed for carrying her to cremation ground then Veena wife of Buta Ram, Jatinder Kaur wife of Ranjit Kumar and Bimla wife of Kewal Ram resident of Daduwal noticed injuries on the person of Gurpreet Kaur and there was mark of throttling on her neck. They disclosed this fact to the respectable who restrained Surinder Pal not to perform funeral of Gurpreet Kaur at present. On returning of respectable, Surinder Pal put the dead-body of Gurpreet Kaur on a cot and carry it to the cremation ground after threatening my younger daughters Satkar, Deepa, Amarjit and Jagdish son of Resham Lal, where Surinder Pal had already collected wood and performed the funeral of Gurpreet Kaur. My husband Surinder Pal had disposed of the dead-body of Gurpreet Kaur after giving her injuries and throttling her neck. I alongwith my brother Naresh Kumar son of Jamuna Dass resident of village Dheena who had come to my house after coming to know about the incident was proceeding to the Police Station for giving intimation when you have met me at the Bus Stand of village Daduwal. I have gone recorded my statement. I am the complainant. Legal action be ta
The need for legal, reliable, and unimpeachable evidence to convict an accused, and the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially in serious offences.
Inherent improbabilities and loopholes in evidence of PWs completely destroy fabric of prosecution case.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement of reliable and substantive evidence to establish guilt, highlighting the insufficiency of recoveries alone to prove the accused's guilt.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.