SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Sukhjit Singh- Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2013
Decided on: September 11, 2014.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 313—Examination of accused—Prejudice to accused—Whole object of section is to afford accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him—Conviction based on accused’s failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. (Para 13)
(2009) 6 SCC 595—Referred.
AIR 1951 SC 441 ; AIR 1953 SC 468 ; (2007) 12 SCC 341—Relied.
Facts of case—
Appellant has challenged judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal whereby Single Judge has affirmed conviction recorded by trial Judge under Section 364 IPC and maintained sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause.
Findings of Court—
There can be no scintilla of doubt that when requisite questions have not been put to accused it has caused immense prejudice to him, more so, when there is no evidence to establish his complicity in alleged abduction.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
1. The present appeal, by special leave, is preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 978-SB of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge has affirmed the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge under Section 364 IPC and maintained the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.5000/-, with the default clause.
2. Filtering the unnecessary details the prosecution case as unfurled is that Swaran Kaur, lodged an FIR No. 173 at P.S. Kotwali, District Kapurthatla on 15.10.1998 alleging that the marriage between her daughter, Kuljit Kaur, was solemnized with the accused-appellant as per religious rites on 7.1.1991 and in the wedlock a son, namely, Manpreet Singh, was born. There was incompatibility between the husband and wife as a consequence of which the accused was ill treating Kuljit Kaur. Initially both of them were staying in a rented house at Kapurthala but in March 1998 they shifted to another rented house situate in Mohalla Preet Nagar, Near Jhanda Mal School, Kapurthala, and started residing there. The informant used to go to her daughter’s house and sometime in May 1998 when she went to meet her daughter she was informed by the landlord that the tenants had vacated the house on 27/28.04.1998 and had left for Ludhiana. The further case of the prosecution is that when the accused had taken Kuljit Kaur with the intention to put an end to her life spark.
3. After the criminal law was set in motion the concerned investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses. It is apt to note here that on the basis of an order passed in a writ petition the investigation was entrusted to the crime branch, Punjab Police and the said investigating agency on completion of the investigation placed the chargesheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magisrtrate, Kapurthala for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and the said court in turn committed the case to the court of Session vide order dated 25.08.2000.
4. The prosecution to substantiate it case examined Sadhu Singh, PW1, Harjit Sing, PW2, Gurmit Singh, PW3, Sadhu Singh son of Baai Singh, PW 4, Grandthi, PW5, the Inspector, Swaran Kaur, the informant, and Sukhdev Singh, PW7, ASI of Police. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed statement of the accused was recorded whose plea in defence was that Kuljit Kaur was wife married to one Labh Singh and she was involved in a case under Section 302 IPC and was in custody. To substantiate the plea, the defence examined four witnesses and brought Exhibit DA and DB on record.
5. The learned trial Judge accepted the testimony of the mother and the other witnesses and further placing reliance on the video recording of the marriage came to hold that the appellant and the Kuljit Kaur were husband and wife, hence the plea that Labh Singh was the husband of Kuljit Kuar was not acceptable; and that Kuljit Kaur and the accused-appellant were last seen together and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the accused to explain about her disappearance. On the aforesaid base, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him as has been stated hereinabove.
6. On an appeal being preferred, the High Court declined to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and followed the same reasoning which has been ascribed by the learned trial Judge.
7. Mr. R.K. Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised four contentions, namely, (i) there is no evidence on record even remotely to show that the appellant had abducted Kuljit Kaur, for the entire evidence brought on record by the prosecution are centered around the fact of proving the existence of marital status between the appellant and the Kuljit Kaur; (ii) that the learned trial Judge has not complied with the basic requirements of Section
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.