State of Punjab Vs. Gurdip Kaur
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2003
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1997 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 169 DB/1995]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1997 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 169 DB/1995]
Petitioner: State of Punjab
Respondent: Gurdip Kaur
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2003
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1997 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 169 DB/1995]
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1997 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 169 DB/1995]
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 21, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Mr. R.K. Pandey, Mr. T.P. Mishra and Mr. H.S. Sandhu, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent.
Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
Criminal Laws
Penal Code, 1860
Section 302/34 – Trial Court convicting the accused under Section 302/34 – High Court acquitting on the ground of (i) delay in lodging FIR (ii) delay in despatching report to Elaka magistrate (iii) evidence of eyewitness not cogent and medical evidence was at variance with ocular evidence. Held it is not a rule of universal application that all the facts numerated above can prove prosecution wrong but taking combined effect of all the facts prosecution failed to establish the accusation. No interference warranted.
Penal Code, 1860
Section 302/34 – Trial Court convicting the accused under Section 302/34 – High Court acquitting on the ground of (i) delay in lodging FIR (ii) delay in despatching report to Elaka magistrate (iii) evidence of eyewitness not cogent and medical evidence was at variance with ocular evidence. Held it is not a rule of universal application that all the facts numerated above can prove prosecution wrong but taking combined effect of all the facts prosecution failed to establish the accusation. No interference warranted.
JUDGEMENT:
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.
1. Challenge is this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal of the respondent. Two appeals were filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 169-DB of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 328-DB of 1995. Both the appeals were directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda holding that each of the accused persons were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). The two appellants in the two Criminal Appeals before the High Court faced trial along with one Bant Singh who was acquitted by the trial court.
2. Detailed reference to the factual position is not necessary in view of the conclusions of the High Court in the two appeals. Firstly it was recorded that there was considerable delay in lodging the first information report and secondly there was considerable unexplained delay in sending the report to the Elaka Magistrate. It was concluded by the High Court that these factors apart from the fact that the evidence of the so called eye-witness was not credible and cogent, the medical evidence was clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecution version unsustainable.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant -State submitted that the factors which have weighed with the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment.
4. Though it cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever there is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in despatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate and/or the medical evidence is at some variance with the ocular evidence the prosecution has to fail, in the instant case the combined effect of the above factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the accusations. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and we do not consider this appeal to be a fit case where any interference is called for.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
1. Challenge is this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal of the respondent. Two appeals were filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 169-DB of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 328-DB of 1995. Both the appeals were directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda holding that each of the accused persons were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’). The two appellants in the two Criminal Appeals before the High Court faced trial along with one Bant Singh who was acquitted by the trial court.
2. Detailed reference to the factual position is not necessary in view of the conclusions of the High Court in the two appeals. Firstly it was recorded that there was considerable delay in lodging the first information report and secondly there was considerable unexplained delay in sending the report to the Elaka Magistrate. It was concluded by the High Court that these factors apart from the fact that the evidence of the so called eye-witness was not credible and cogent, the medical evidence was clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecution version unsustainable.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant -State submitted that the factors which have weighed with the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment.
4. Though it cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever there is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in despatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate and/or the medical evidence is at some variance with the ocular evidence the prosecution has to fail, in the instant case the combined effect of the above factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the accusations. The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and we do not consider this appeal to be a fit case where any interference is called for.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
