J 2011 SCC OnLine

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Friday, February 25, 2022

Printed For: Mr Vivek Narayan Sharma
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal Appeal No. 797-DBA of 2002
Sukhminder Singh v. State of Punjab
2011 SCC OnLine P&H 13833
(BEFORE JASBIR SINGH AND SABINA, JJ.)
Sukhminder Singh .…. Appellant

v.
State of Punjab and others .…. Respondents
Mr. Sandeep Majithia, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mrs. Gurveen M. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5.
Criminal Appeal No. 797-DBA of 2002
Decided on October 4, 2011
Jasbir Singh, J.
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed against judgment dated February 22, 2002, vide which a
criminal complaint, filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Sessions
Judge at Amritsar. It was allegation against respondents No. 2 to 5 that they, in
connivance with each other had committed murder of Smt. Surinder Kaur (wife of
respondent No. 2) by administering her some poisonous substance.
On a complaint made by the appellant, FIR No. 60 was registered against respondents
No. 2 to 5 on May 15, 1994, for commission of offences under Section 302/34 and 498
-A IPC. It appears that after investigation, no action was taken in that FIR, which
necessitated the filing of a criminal complaint by the appellant against the private
respondents. The facts of the complaint, as noted by the trial Court, read thus:
“The facts as narrated in the complaint are that complainant is resident of village Sarai
Amanat Khan. He is having four brothers and four sisters. His one sister namely
Surinder Kaur was married to accused Sucha Singh since 16/17 years back in village
Rajjian, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. Accused Sucha Singh is serving in Punjab
Police as a constable. From their wedlock, four children were born. It is further alleged
that from the very beginning, the behaviour of accused Sucha Singh, Mehanga Singh,
Parkash Kaur and Bikramjit Singh was very cruel and harsh towards the sister of the
complainant.His sister narrated the whole story to her father and other family
members. The complainant and his father fulfilled the demands of the accused so
many times but the demands of the accused increased day by day. It is further
alleged that Sucha Singh gave beatings to his sister and persuaded her to bring more
dowry. Accused Sucha Singh had illicit relations with Amarjit Kaur who is residing at
Amritsar. The sister of the complainant raised objections regarding illicit relations of
accused Sucha Singh with said Amarjit Kaur. When his sister requested the accused
Sucha Singh not to go to the house of said Amarjit Kaur, on this accused Sucha Singh
gave merciless beatings to the sister of the complainant. Since 2/3 years back, sister
of the complainant was turned out from her matrimonial house in three wearing
apparels. She came to her parental house and narrated the whole occurrence.
Thereafter a Panchayat consisting of the complainant, his father, Sarpanch of village
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gandiwind, Dilbagh Singh, Ranjit Singh and other respectables of the village
approached the accused and requested them not to maltreat his sister Surinder Kaur
and then compromise was effected between the accused and the complainant party.
Thereafter, accused No. 1 Sucha Singh took the sister of the complainant to his house
but the behaviour of the accused never changed. The accused persons time and again
gave merciless beatings to his sister and pressurised her to bring more dowry.
Surinder Kaur filed an application to the S.P. City Amritsar (Women Cell) where the
accused were summoned but the accused did not appear there. It is further alleged
that on 24.2.1994, Bikramjit Singh and Parkash Kaur accused came to the house of
the complainant and left his sister Surinder Kaur in an unconscious condition. On the
same day, the complainant took his sister Surinder Kaur and got her admitted in T.B.
Hospital, Amritsar. On regaining consciousness, she told her father and brother that
accused Sucha Singh, Parkash Kaur and Bikramjit Singh had given mercury with milk
with the intention to murder her. Then father of the complainant made an application
to Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, who deputed Executive Magistrate Shri Balwinder
Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Amritsar. Shri Balwinder Singh recorded the dying declaration
of Surinder Kaur deceased in the presence of the doctors. On the advise of the doctors,
the complainant took his sister to his house and she died on 13.5.1994. Accused
Sucha Singh, husband, Parkash Kaur mother-in-law, Mahenga Singh father in law and
Bikramjit Singh brother-in-law of deceased Surinder Kaur had committed her murder
with the common intention. It is further alleged that on the statement of Pritam
Singh, father of deceased Surinder Kaur, FIR No. 60/1994 u/S 302/34 IPC was
recorded at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan but the accused party being influential
persons got the FIR cancelled as untraced.”
The criminal complaint was committed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class to
the competent Court for trial vide order dated December 14, 1996. On receipt of the
complaint, preliminary evidence was recorded. The complainant produced seven
witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove his case. Finding
a prima facie case against respondents No. 2 to 5, they were summoned to face trial
for commission of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. They were charge-sheeted, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution again produced five
witnesses to prove its case and on conclusion of evidence, statements of the private
respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing
on record was put to them, which they denied, claim innocence and false implication.
They also led evidence in defence. On conclusion of the trial, the Court below found
that the complainant has failed to prove his case and accordingly the complaint was
dismissed. Hence this appeal.
Counsel for the appellant Shri Sandeep Majithia, Advocate, has vehemently contended
that the judgment, passed by the Court below, is against the record. The Court below
has failed to notice that a dying declaration was made by deceased Surinder Kaur
before a Naib Tehsildar, in which she had levelled serious allegations against all the
private respondents. The trial Court has misread the evidence, which has resulted into
miscarriage of justice. He further argued that the deposition made by the prosecution
witnesses is trust worthy and the trial Court has erred in not believing their
statements. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, judgment under challenge be set
aside and respondents No. 2 to 5 be convicted and sentenced for the offence with
which they were charged.
Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Shri D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, for the
private respondents. By making reference to the evidence on record, he argued that
the alleged confessional statement is not believable and the same appears to have
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
been made out of frustration. The deceased was suffering from tuberculosis and was
under treatment from the year 1993. To say so, reference has been made to the
deposition of Narinder Kumar (DW1), T.B. Sanatorium, Amritsar, and also statement
made by DW3 Darshan Singh, Librian, SGTB Hospital, who has deposed that the
deceased was admitted in Guru Nanak Hospital, Amritsar, on September 2, 1993, and
she remained admitted there upto September 13, 1993. By stating that Surinder Kaur
had died because of tuberculosis, Shri Pheruman prayed that the appeal having no
substance be dismissed.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to
interference at the instance of the appellant in the judgment under challenge. The
private respondents have proved on record that the deceased was keeping ill health
and she was under treatment for tuberculosis from the year 1993. This fact is
established when we look into the deposition made by Narinder Kumar (DW1) and
Darshan Singh (DW3), who have categorically so stated on the basis of record. It is
also proved on record that Surinder Kaur was admitted in T.B. Hospital on February
24, 1994. In case there was any complaint of administration of mercury to her, she
would have been admitted in the general ward and not in the T.B. Hospital. DW1
Narinder Kumar has specifically stated that the deceased was an OPD patient since
August 23, 1993. To the same effect is the statement made by Darshan Singh (DW3).
There is nothing on record to show that death had occurred on account of
administration of mercury to the deceased. Furthermore, as per case of the
complainant, alleged dying declaration was made by the deceased on April 11, 1994,
before a Tehsildar. In her statement she has stated that by breaking the thermometer,
the mercury was mixed in her milk. If it was so, after making of that statement on
April 11, 1994, it was expected that the complainant should have reported the matter
to the police or to the doctor so that necessary action could have been taken to save
the deceased but it was not done.
Not only as above, Surinder Kaur had died in the house of the complainant on May 13,
1994. In his statement, complainant (PW5) has admitted that after her death, the
dead body was cremated with the consent and in the presence of all the relatives. He
has further admitted that the doctor declined treatment to the deceased being
incurable and then she was taken to her parental house where she died. If it was
known to the complainant that the death had occurred due to administration of some
poisonous substance to the deceased, he should have reported the matter immediately
to the police so that post-mortem on the dead body could have been conducted to
ascertain the cause of death. As per admitted facts, complaint was made only after
cremating the dead body. It has also come on record that on account of prolonged
illness and due to a suspicion that respondent No. 2 had relations with some woman,
it appears that there was anger in the mind of the deceased against her husband and
out of that, she had got recorded her statement on April 11, 1994, implicating
respondents No. 2 to 5. Before recording that statement, fitness certificate was not
obtained from the Doctor. Despite opportunity being available, no application was
made before a Judicial Magistrate to record the statement. Perusal of the documents
on record indicate that the trial Court was justified in arriving at the decision
acquitting respondents No. 2 to 5 in this appeal. The view taken by the trial Court is
perfectly justified and is tenable.
It is a case where, in view of evidence on record, it can safely be said that the
prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused. Even in cases where two views are
possible, after acquittal, in appeal, benefit will go to the accused.
Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that 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.”
To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Goa
v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007)
4 SCC 415.
Similarly, in Mrinal Das v. The State of Tripura, (Criminal Appeal No. 1719 of 2011),
decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into various
judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a
judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the
judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction,
is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final
court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence
and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to
arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in
favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in
criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal.
There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate
court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both
facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it
is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by
giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of
acquittal is to be interfered with only 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.”
Counsel for the appellant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on the part
of the trial Court or any other factual error in the judgment, which may necessitate
any interference by this Court. The opinion expressed by the trial Court was possible in
view of evidence on record.
In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed.
———
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

J 2011 SCC OnLine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J 2011 SCC OnLine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Friday, February 25, 2022

Criminal Appeal No. 797-DBA of 2002

Sukhminder Singh v. State of Punjab

2011 SCC OnLine P&H 13833

(BEFORE JASBIR SINGH AND SABINA, JJ.)

Sukhminder Singh .…. Appellant

In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed.

You might also like