Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Surjit Kaur on 2 May, 2012
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 2.5.2012
State of Punjab
... Applicant
Versus
Surjit Kaur
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA.
Present: Mr. K.D.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab, for the applicant.
Jasbir Singh, J.
This application has been filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 29.3.2011 acquitting Surjit Kaur, respondent, of the charge framed against her.
The above named respondent along with Devinder Singh, her son, Teja Singh, her husband and one Baljit Kaur were arrayed as accused in FIR No. 118 dated 28.11.2006. It was an allegation against the accused that they have caused death of Amarjit Kaur, wife of Devinder Singh, by putting her on fire.
The trial Judge has noted the following facts regarding the case of prosecution:-
"that on 28.11.2006 one wireless message was received in Police Station Dehlon from Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana, to the effect that Amarjit Kaur wife of Devinder Singh resident of village Seelon Khurd was admitted in CMC Hospital, Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M) 2 Ludhiana due to burn injuries. On this ASI Sukhbir Singh along with other police officials reached at CMC Hospital, Ludhiana after getting a ruqa from Police Station Division No.3 Ludhiana. An application for obtaining opinion of doctor was moved for recording statement of injured. Doctor concerned declared injured Amarjit Kaur fit to make statement. Then ASI Sukhbir Singh reached the Court of Ms. Rajni Chhokra Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and moved application along with written opinion for recording statement of injured Amarjit Kaur. Thereafter, Ms. Rajni Chhokra Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, reached the hospital and recorded statement of injured which was read over and explained to her. She admitted the same to be correct.
Her statement was also recorded by investigating officer to the effect that she got married with accused Davinder Singh in the year 1995. She had three brothers. After their marriage she had given birth to one daughter and a son who were then nine and seven years respectively. In her matrimonial home apart from her parents-in-law. She had two sisters-in-law. One of his sister-in-law got married one day prior to her marriage while Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M) 3 younger sister-in-law was still unmarried. Till 1999 her parental family had been cultivating the land of her in-laws family. After that they stopped cultivating the said land. She was asked by her in-laws family to bring Rs.2 Lacs from her parents for purchasing a tractor in order to cultivate the land. She then conveyed to her parental family about their demand who in turn advised her to tolerate all that as her children were to grow up soon. Her parental family had given to her one gas cylinder and one engine but still she was being harassed by her in laws. Sometime back all the accused gave her bearings. As a result of which she remained admitted in the hospital for treatment. All this was conveyed to her parents but she was sent back again to matrimonial home on the assurance given by her in laws not to repeat such thing.
Thereafter her husband had been planning to go abroad and on account of that her in laws family had been harassing and pressurizing her to give him divorce so that he could go abroad on marriage basis. She was since not ready to give divorce to her husband and refused for that she was being harassed on that account continuously. On the last night all the accused namely Devinder Singh Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M) 4 her husband, Baljit Kaur sister in law, Surjit Kaur mother-in-law and Teja Singh her father-in-law had given her beatings forcing her to agree to give divorce to her husband. That at about 4.30 A.M. all the accused in connivance with each other poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with an intention to kill her. She also told about the incident to her brother Gurbax Singh in the hospital."
After recording statement of the deceased, ASI Sukhbir Singh, sent an intimation to the Police Station to for recording to record an FIR. He also recorded statements of the witnesses, got prepared a site plan of the place of occurrence. On 29.1.2006, injured Amarjit Kaur expired. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest proceedings and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. On completion of the investigation, final report was presented in the Court against Devinder Singh and Teja Singh only. The names of respondent-Surjit Kaur and Baljit Kaur were put in column No.2 of the above report. During trial, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Respondent-Surjit Kaur and Baljit Kaur were summoned as additional accused. Copies of the documents were supplied to all the accused, as per norms. They were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, the prosecution produced ten witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, separate statements of all the accused were Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M) 5 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material, existing on record, was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. (Accused Baljit Kaur was declared as a Proclaimed Offender).
The trial Judge, on appraisal of the evidence, found respondent Surjit Kaur not guilty and accordingly she was ordered to be acquitted. However, Devinder Singh and Teja Singh were convicted and sentenced for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC.
State counsel has vehemently contended that while acquitting respondent Surjit Kaur, the trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. However, at the time of arguments, he has failed to indicate any legal flaw in the judgment under challenge. During trial, the prosecution relied upon two dying declarations made by the deceased in which no specific accusation was made against respondent Surjit Kaur also. During investigation, respondent Surjit Kaur was found innocent and her name was put in column No.2 of the final report. It has come on record, as stated by DW.5 Dr.S.K. Sharma, that Surjit Kaur was partially paralytic from her right side of the body. The trial Judge has also noted the deposition made by DW.3 Harmanjot Kaur, who has stated that Surjit Kaur was sleeping with her in a room at the time of alleged occurrence. After critically analyzing the above statements, benefit of doubt has rightly been given to Surjit Kaur. The view taken by the trial Judge is as per the evidence on record.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M) 6 where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479, decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M) 7 when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.
8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M) 8 of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for."
Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:-
"10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been Criminal Misc. No. A-177-MA of 2012 (O&M) 9 fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience."
Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Judge which may necessitate interference by this Court.
No ground is made out to condone delay of 242 days in filing the appeal as well.
Both the applications are dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Sabina) Judge May 2, 2012 "DK"