Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sumeet Goel, J.
Pardeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 12814 of 2024
Decided On : 18-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. J.K. Singla, Mr. Anup Singh AAG, Punjab

The importance of considering both ocular and scientific evidence in criminal cases, and the need for tangible evidence to support DNA testing.

Headnote:
Regular Bail - Offences against Women - IPC 1860 (Sections 363, 366-A, 376), POCSO Act 2012 (Sections 3, 4)
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The prime prosecution witnesses turned hostile, and the petitioner argued for bail based on the precedence of ocular evidence over medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the custody period, lack of evidence indicating the likelihood of the petitioner absconding or interfering with the prosecution, and granted regular bail with specific conditions.
Issues: Custody period, weightage of hostile witnesses, relevance of FSL/medical evidence vs. ocular version
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence to support DNA testing and the importance of considering ocular evidence in conjunction with scientific evidence. It also highlighted the lack of tangible evidence indicating the likelihood of the petitioner absconding or interfering with the prosecution.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail with specific conditions.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The case involves a petition for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner, who is accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 363, 366-A, 376, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act Sections 3 and 4 (!) (!) .
The case is based on an FIR alleging that the petitioner abducted and committed sexual assault on a minor girl, with the incident allegedly involving false representations and taking the victim away from her school (!) .
The prosecution's witnesses, including the victim and her family members, have turned hostile, which has impacted the strength of the evidence against the petitioner (!) .
The petitioner has been in custody since 26.05.2023, approximately nine months and twenty-four days at the time of the hearing, with no evidence suggesting an intent to abscond or interfere with the investigation (!) .
The court considered the importance of ocular evidence versus scientific evidence, such as DNA testing, emphasizing that scientific evidence alone should not be the sole basis for conviction. The court noted that the scientific evidence (FSL/medical) was not conclusive enough to establish guilt without corroboration (!) .
The court acknowledged that the witnesses' hostility and the conflicting nature of the evidence necessitate a thorough trial to determine credibility and relevance, and at this stage, the absence of tangible evidence indicating flight risk or interference justified granting bail (!) .
The court observed that the petitioner had no involvement in other cases and that further detention was unwarranted given the circumstances (!) .
The bail was granted with specific conditions to prevent misuse, tampering with evidence, absconding, committing further offences, and to ensure cooperation during the trial. The petitioner was also directed to deposit his passport and provide his cellphone number to authorities (!) - (!) .
The court clarified that its decision to grant bail does not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case and that the bail could be revoked if conditions are breached or if new circumstances arise (!) .
The main case and any pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of following the bail order (!) .

These points encapsulate the essence of the court's reasoning, the procedural posture, and the conditions imposed for bail, reflecting the court's approach to balancing the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.

Judgment

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.122 dated 25.05.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366- A, 376 of IPC, 1860 (Act No.45 of 1860) and Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 (Act No.32 of 2012) at Police Station Sadar Mansa, District Mansa.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question is as follows:-

“Statement of Iqbal Singh Son of Jalaur Singh, resident of Village Uddat Bhagat Ram, aged about 40 years, M.No.82830-80473 stated that I am resident of the above mentioned address and working as labourer. My marriage was solemnized about 17 years ago with Simarjeet Kaur daughter of Mander Singh, resident of Takhtmal, Haryana, Sirsa and three children were born out from our both wedlock and out of which elder daughter Randeep Kaur aged about 14 years and two sons younger from her. My wife Simarjeet Kaur is residing at her parental village from last two years due to having dispute with me and three children are residing with me. My elder daughter Randeep Kaur who was studying in 10th Class at Government High School, Village Mojia and whose date of birth is 18.05.2009. As per daily routine my daughter Randeep Kaur after ready for school and then left the home at about 08:00 AM for going to school but not reached in school and after finishing school time when my daughter reached at home then she was crying and she told upon asked by me that Pardeep Singh Son of Virsha Singh alongwith Dilpreet Singh alias Gori Son of Kala Singh, resident of Alampur Mandra took me on motorcycle from outside of gate of school by saying that you have been called by your Aunt (Bua) and told me that they instead of took my daughter before Aunt (Bua) rather took in any abundant house at village Joian and where Pardeep Singh has committed rape with my daughter against her wish and Dilpreet Singh was standing outside the room and after this incidence, left/drop my daughter near gate of school. Legal action be taken against both of them. I got recorded my statement, correct, Sd/- Iqbal Singh. Attested by Gurmeet Kaur ASI/679 Police Station Sadar Mansa. Dated 25.05.2023.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 26.05.2023. Learned counsel has further submitted that the prime prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 (victim), PW-2 (complainant/father of victim), PW-3 (aunt of victim) as also PW-4 (owner of place of alleged offence) have turned hostile and, in all likelihood, the trial is not likely to result into conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in Suresh vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported as 2023 (2) AIR Bom.R (Cri.) 340 to argue that the ocular version is to be given primacy vis-a-vis. the medical version. The relevant extract of this judgment is as follows:-

“7. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2023 (2) SCC 353)], highlighted the need to ensure quality testing and lesser possibility of tampering with the evidence. No doubt, the DNA testing and the report is based on a well developed science and it can lead of a concluded evidence, still it depends upon the extracting of samples, its preservation and ruling out the possibility of tampering. While considering DNA report from the series of the decisions, the legal position for DNA profiling report and its probative value are concerned, it is emerging that the prosecution is duty bound to prove all the steps which were taken by the investigating agency right from collecting the blood samples, preservation etc. We may rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Chattisgarh High Court in Kisan Lal @ Champa Yadav v. State of Chattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No.565 of 2022 decided on 22.02.2023, wherein the account of many decisions on the legal aspect of DNA tests and DNA report has been considered. Further,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document