Ranjit Kaur @ Rimpy vs Bhupinder Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, KULDEEP TIWARI, JJ.
Ranjit Kaur @ Rimpy – Appellant
Versus
Bhupinder Singh & Ors. – Respondents
CRA-AD NO. 840 of 2019
Decided On : 22-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ravi Sodhi, Advocate and Mr. Umesh Pandey, Advocate; For the Appellant
For the Respondent: Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, Advocate and Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307, 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 - Appeal against acquittal - The court maintained the acquittal of the accused, citing inordinate delay in FIR reporting and lack of credible evidence supporting the assault claim against the accused - The complainant's explanation for delay found unsatisfactory and fabricated - Evidence indicated that injuries were likely due to a roadside accident rather than assault. (Paras 10-16)

(B) Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - The court emphasized that the testimony of the complainant was rife with contradictions and did not inspire confidence, thereby eroding the prosecution's case. (Paras 16-17)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged assault by the accused following a family dispute, but the timeline showed significant delays in reporting the event. Court proceedings led to an acquittal based on evidence and procedural issues.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed due to insufficient evidence and procedural flaws, maintaining the trial court's acquittal of the accused.

Issues: Whether the delay in lodging the FIR undermined the prosecution's case and the credibility of the complainant's account of the events.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unexplained delays in reporting and contradictions in witness testimonies resulted in a failure to establish a clear case against the accused.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. details of the complainant's marriage and incident. (Para 2 , 3)
2. summary of investigation and trial processes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 8 , 9)
4. court's observations on fir delay and evidence credibility. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. court analysis indicates no assault; injuries from accident. (Para 16 , 17)
6. decision to dismiss the appeal. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, through a verdict drawn on 01.10.2019, upon CNR No.HRS101001081-2018, made a verdict of acquittal upon the accused. The verdict of acquittal (supra) has been assailed, before this Court, at the instance of the aggrieved therefrom complainant, appellant herein.

Factual background

2. The genesis of the prosecution case becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Mark DX2 has been assigned. The narrations carried in Mark DX2 are, that the complainant Ranjit Kaur @ Rimpy was married to Gurpreet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, in the year 2004 and from the said wedlock, a daughter namely Jashanpreet Kaur was born. However, her husband died on 16.6.2007 and after the death of her husband her parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law started maltreating her and after some days, they threw her out of the matrimonial home and thereafter, a Biradri Panchayat was convened and the complainant demanded her share from her husband's property but father-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant denied to give the same to her. However, maintenance amount was ordered by the court to be paid by Sukhdev Singh to the complainant and due to this reason they were nurturing a grudge against the complainant. The complainant has been working as security guard at OHM Cine Garden. On 27.11.2012, at about 6.00 p.m, while she was coming back to her village Bhavdeen on her scooty, she was stopped by a white Maruti Car and accused alighted from the said car and gave a lalkara to teach a lesson to the complainant. The complainant tried to run away, but accused Sahab Singh caught her and gave a fist blow on her right eye, and, Bhupender Singh gave blow to her with an iron rod, and, Sahab Singh also pushed her, upon which the complainant fell unconscious. The complainant got treatment from Sangwan Hospital, Sirsa. After some days, when the complainant regained consciousness, accused convened a Biradari Panchayat and requested for compromise in the matter. On 9.12.2012, the complainant was discharged from the hospital. On 24.2.2013, a compromise was effected between the complainant and the accused, wherein it was decided that the accused persons would pay her Rs.40,000/- and would give two acres of land, as her share in the property of Sukhdev Singh. However, the accused persons did not comply with the terms of the compromise and upon this, the complainant got registered the instant appeal FIR.

3. As police did not take any action against the accused-persons, rather filed cancellation report, thus it led the complainant to file a complaint, to which Ex.P2 has been assigned. On the basis of this complaint and preliminary evidence(s), the ld. trial Magistrate concerned, vide order dated 16.07.2015, summoned the accused persons under Sections 323 , 341, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Investigation Proceedings

4. After registration of case, investigation was conducted by DSP and ASP, who visited the alleged place of incident. The place of occurrence was inspected by the investigating officer concerned. Mechanical examination of the scooty, as driven by the complainant, on the alleged day of incident, was also conducted. Further investigation was carried out. Statement of witnesses were recorded.

Committal Proceedings

5. Since the offence under Section 307 of IPC was exclusively triable by the court of Session, thus, the learned committal Court concerned, through a committal order made on 09.02.2018, hence proceeded to commit the accused to face trial before the court