Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 154
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal Nos.664665 / 2024
(Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.18521853/ 2024)
(Arising out of Diary No. 15720/2020)
State of Punjab ….Appellant(s)
versus
Gurpreet Singh & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
JUDGEMENT
SURYA KANT, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
(hereinafter, ‘High
Court’) , allowing Criminal Appeal, CRAD1606DB2015 (O&M) filed by Gurpreet
Singh, Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh (Respondent Nos. 13) and Criminal
Revision, CRR29422015 (O&M) filed by Harpreet Singh against their conviction
awarded by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (hereinafter, ‘Trial
vide judgments dated 29.09.2015 and 02.07.2015 respectively. The High
Court’)
Court has, through the impugned judgment, acquitted all the four Respondents of
the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2024.03.01
12:36:33 IST
Reason:
F ACTS :
1
4. At this juncture, it is imperative to delve into the factual matrix to set out
the context of the present proceedings.
5. FIR No. 100 dated 18.07.2012, was registered at Police Station City
Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural, under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and Sections
25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The subject FIR was lodged on the
statement of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2), the Complainant, who stated that his elder
daughter, Kirandeep Kaur, was married to Gurpreet Singh (main accused) in the
year 2009 and they got divorced in the year 2011. On 18.07.2012, at about 1.30
p.m., the Complainant was taking rest in his bedroom while his wife, Amarjit
Kaur, and their son and younger daughter were on the first floor. At the exact time
of the incident, the Complainant received information from Amarjit Kaur, who was
standing on the stairs, that someone was calling for him. The Complainant opened
the drawingroom door to check the main gate, wherein he saw Gurpreet Singh,
accompanied by an unidentified individual, who had entered the porch by jumping
the compound wall. Gurpreet Singh was armed with a pistol, while the
unidentified person held a hockey stick. No sooner did the Complainant open the
drawingroom door Gurpreet Singh shot at the Complainant’s wife, Amarjit Kaur,
under the right ear from a close range. When the Complainant accessed the main
gate, he saw brothers of Gurpreet Singh, namely, Harpreet Singh and Joga Singh
(sons of Puran Singh r/o Bhodipura), standing there besides an Innova car. The
Complainant shouted at them and tried to catch hold of the assailants, but they
crossed the main gate and fled in the Innova car. The reason for enmity, according
to the Complainant, was that the daughter of the Complainant, Kirandeep Kaur,
had cleared the IELTS exam and had shifted to Australia. Gurpreet Singh also
wanted to settle in Australia, but due to their divorce, his dreams were shattered,
2
and he blamed Amarjit Kaur, the wife of the Complainant to be responsible for the
divorce.
6. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring the guilt home,
including Gursewak Singh, P.W.2 (the Complainant) and his daughter,
Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), both eyewitnesses. The entire case of the prosecution
is based upon the version of these two eyewitnesses, who claimed that the murder
took place in the broad daylight in front of them.
7. The Trial Court, having found the version of the two eyewitnesses to be
trustworthy, which was duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the
recovery of the weapon, held Gurpreet Singh guilty of the offence under Section
302 IPC, whereas his coaccused were held guilty for the offence under Section
302/34 IPC. All of them were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
8. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, disbelieved the version of
Gursewak Singh (P.W.2, the Complainant) and his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur
(P.W.3), primarily for the reasons that (i) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) had gone for the
medical checkup of his son to a hospital in Jagraon. It was not possible for him to
reach back Doraha at the time of occurrence, as the distance was of about 70
kms. (ii) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) failed to disclose the names of the coaccused,
Harpreet Singh and Kashmira Singh, in his first version, and he is stated to have
recollected their names after about five hours. (iii) It is doubtful that Harmandeep
Kaur (P.W.3) would be attending her classes from her parental house rather than
from her inlaws' house since she got married only a few months ago. (iv) No Test
Identification Parade was conducted. (v) There is a great mystery about the
nomination of Jagdeep Singh, Harpreet Singh S/o Veer Singh and Kashmira Singh
because, as per the testimony of the eyewitnesses, they were never named before
3
the police, and even the Investigating Officer has also not disclosed as to how
these persons have been nominated as accused. (vi) These discrepancies,
inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances go to the root of the case and
severely dent the credibility of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) and his daughter.
9. The High Court, thus, viewed that once the defence is able to cast a
reasonable doubt on the story of the prosecution, the necessary consequence will
be the acquittal of the accused.
10. Discontented with the acquittal of the accused persons, the State of Punjab
is in appeal before us.
ONTENTIONS OF ARTIES
C P
11. Mr. Gaurav Dhama, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of
Punjab, argued that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused, by setting
aside the wellreasoned findings by the Trial Court, which categorically stated that
based on the direct and unequivocal statements provided by both the witnesses
(P.W.2 and P.W.3), it was conclusively proved that Gurpreet Singh fired shots at
Amarjit Kaur. The Complainant and the eyewitness, having lost a close family
member in the incident, had no motive to protect the real accused or falsely
implicate the innocent persons of committing the crime. Mr. Dhama vehemently
contended that Gurpreet Singh harboured suspicions that the deceased played a
big role in his divorce. He kept holding a grudge against her, which served as the
motive for the murder. Additionally, the testimonies of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2)
and his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), distinctly indicated that soon after
Amarjit Kaur was shot, she was discovered to be dead, prompting them to alert
the authorities. Furthermore, P.W.3 provided a clear and unequivocal
identification of the accusedRespondents as the assailants at the police station,
4
which was substantiated by a proper identification in the court.
12. Per contra , Mr. Karan Dewan, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents,
urged that this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 136 of the
Constitution, should be extremely cautious in interfering with an order of
acquittal passed by the High Court. Further, the offence took place in the broad
daylight, it is quite strange that none of the neighbours witnessed the occurrence.
He maintains that the High Court has rightly cast doubt on the prosecution’s case
as the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 does not inspire confidence. He also
contended that P.W.3 was a married girl, and it was highly unlikely that she was
attending classes from her paternal home despite getting married only a few
months ago.
NALYSIS
A
13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length,
we find that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal; (i)
whether a case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 136; (ii)
whether the acquittal of Respondents is sustainable, if the answer of the first
question is in the affirmative.
COPE OF NTERFERENCE
S I
14. Learned counsel for the Respondents very passionately contends that the
case does not fall within such exceptional category where this Court, while
exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution, should interfere in a
wellreasoned order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
15. There is no gainsaying that once the appellate court acquits the accused,
the presumption of innocence as it existed before conviction by the Trial Court,
stands restored, and this Court, while scrutinizing the evidence, will proceed with
5
great circumspect and will not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal, save
when the impeccable prosecution evidence nails the accused beyond any doubt.
In other words, where on consideration of the material on record, even if two views
are possible, yet this Court, while exercising powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution, will not tinker with an order of acquittal.
1
16. does acknowledge that a judgment
State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha
of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
Nevertheless, the caveat is that the court must not shy away from its
responsibility to prevent a miscarriage of justice and must intervene when
necessary. If the acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds, if the High Court allows
itself to be misled by distractions, if the High Court dismisses the evidence
accepted by the Trial Court without proper consideration, or if the High Court's
flawed approach leads to the neglect of vital evidence, this Court is obligated to
intervene to uphold the interests of justice and address any concerns within the
judicial conscience.
2
17. In Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar , this Court has outlined the principles
guiding its intervention in acquittal orders under Article 136. These are:
(i)
An intervention is warranted when the High Court's approach or reasoning
is deemed perverse. This occurs when the High Court, based on suspicion
and surmises, rejects evidence or when the acquittal is primarily rooted in
an exaggerated adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of doubt in favour
of the accused.
(ii) Another circumstance for intervention arises when the acquittal would lead
to a significant miscarriage of justice. This refers to situations where the
1 (2017) 6 SCC 263.
2 (2022) 3 SCC 471.
6
High Court, through a cursory examination of evidence, severs the
connection between the accused and the crime.
18. An erroneous or perverse approach to the proven facts of a case and/or
ignorance of some of the vital circumstances would amount to a grave and
substantial miscarriage of justice. In such a case, this Court will be justified in
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to undo the injustice mete out to the
victims of a crime.
19. Keeping these principles in mind, we proceed to analyse the legal evidence
on record and how the High Court appears to have fallen in an error, at least
partially, if not in entirety.
A CQUITTAL O RDER QUA G URPREET S INGH (M AIN A CCUSED )
20. With a view to establish charges against Gurpreet Singh, the prosecution
relied on the testimonies of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2), Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3)
and Hari Mittar (P.W.9). A brief summarization of their testimonies is necessitated
hereunder.
21. P.W.2, Gursewak Singh, the deceased's husband, is the Complainant in FIR
No. 100/2012. He provided a detailed account of the incident to the police,
recounting that his wife, who was standing on the stairs, informed him of
someone calling from outside the main gate. Upon opening the door of the drawing
room, he witnessed Gurpreet Singh armed with a pistol. Gurpreet Singh and the
unidentified person (Jagdeep Singh, named later on during the testimony) had
entered the house by scaling the wall of the house. While P.W.2 was standing at
the drawingroom door, Gurpreet Singh aimed the pistol at Amarjit Kaur, shot her
under the right ear causing her to fall. P.W.2 raised the alarm, and upon reaching
7
the main gate, he saw Gurpreet Singh, along with Harpreet Singh, Kashmira
Singh, and Jagdeep Singh, making their escape in an Innova car. P.W.2 asserted
that the motive behind the murder was related to his elder daughter, Kirandeep
Kaur, who was earlier married to Gurpreet Singh and had relocated to Australia.
Due to the divorce from Kirandeep, Gurpreet Singh's plans to settle in Australia
were thwarted, and he held the deceased Amarjit Kaur responsible for the divorce.
22. P.W.3, Harmandeep Kaur, the younger daughter of the deceased, recounted
that she, along with her brother and mother, was on the terrace of the house.
Amarjit Kaur, hence deceased, while descending the stairs, informed Gursewak
Singh P.W.2 of the call. P.W.2 opened the drawing room door to check the main
gate. In the meantime, Gurpreet Singh, armed with a pistol, and Jagdeep Singh,
wielding a hockey stick, entered the premises by scaling the boundary wall.
Gurpreet Singh aimed the pistol at Amarjit Kaur, who was standing on the stairs,
firing a shot that struck below her right ear. Subsequently, Gurpreet Singh and
Jagdeep Singh fled in an Innova car. P.W.3 also detailed the motive, indicating
that Gurpreet Singh believed Amarjit Kaur was responsible for the divorce from
Kirandeep Kaur, sabotaging his plan to settle in Australia.
23. P.W.9, Hari Mittar, the Investigating Officer of the case, reported that upon
reaching the scene of the incident, he documented the statement of P.W.2 and
compiled an inquest report concerning the deceased, Amarjit Kaur. Additionally,
he mentioned that after the arrest, Gurpreet Singh was interrogated where he
made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW9/F) revealing the concealment of a 12bore
countrymade pistol along with two live cartridges in bushes opposite Gurudwara
Bhaura Sahib. Acting on this disclosure statement, the police successfully
recovered a 12bore countrymade pistol, one empty cartridge, and two live
8
cartridges of the same calibre.
24. The Trial Court, deeming P.W.2 and P.W.3 as natural witnesses, based its
findings on their testimonies to establish the involvement of Gurpreet Singh in the
murder of Amarjit Kaur. Furthermore, the Trial Court noted that there was no
apparent motive for P.W.2 and P.W.3 to protect the real culprits and falsely accuse
innocent individuals in connection with the crime. The pertinent paragraph is
outlined below:
“51. Thus, the presence of both the complainant and
Harmandeep Kaur at the place of occurrence comes across as
natural presence. From the direct and unequivocal testimonies
of both theses witnesses the fact that accused Gurpreet Singh
shot at Amarjit Kaur is duly established. The complainant
and the eye witness lost their family member in the incident.
There would be no reason for the complainant and
Harmandeep Kaur to shield the actual culprits and to name
the innocent as the perpetrators of the crime.”
25. The High Court, however, in the impugned judgment, stated that the
defence has been able to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's story.
Consequently, High Court has disbelieved the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3.
26. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons assigned by the
High Court, and we find it extremely difficult to concur with the same. We say so
for the reason that the presence of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) in his own house
cannot indeed be doubted for the simple reason that the occurrence took place at
1.30 p.m. and he made a call to the Police Control Room at 1.40 p.m. The fact that
in the very first version, Gursewak Singh disclosed the name of the Gurpreet
Singh, as being the killer of his wife, leaves no room to doubt that he was
physically present in the house and witnessed the occurrence.
27. Similarly, the reason assigned by the High Court to discard the version of
Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) (daughter of the deceased) is wholly untenable. We
9
cannot at all countenance that a daughter, after her marriage, would permanently
stay at her inlaws' house and would not visit her parents after her marriage.
Such a sweeping conclusion is neither traceable to Punjab’s social culture nor it
appeals to our common sense. It is on record that Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) was
a student before and after her marriage. It is natural that even after her marriage,
Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) wanted to continue her studies, and therefore was
staying with her parents. We see no unnatural or unexpected circumstances in
she being present in her paternal home on the fateful day.
28. There is no suggestion to Gursewak Singh, P.W.2 (Complainant), and his
daughter Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) that they had some other reason to implicate
Gurpreet Singh falsely, who happens to be the former husband of the daughter of
P.W.2. There was no criminal or civil case filed by the Kirandeep Kaur (exwife of
Gurpreet Singh), Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) or his family members against Gurpreet
Singh. On the contrary, the prosecution has successfully established that
Gurpreet Singh had been nursing a grudge against the deceased, whom he held
responsible for the divorce from the elder daughter of the deceased. It has also
come on record that the elder daughter, Kirandeep Kaur, with whom Gurpreet
Singh was earlier married, had settled in Australia even before her marriage.
Gurpreet Singh was keen to migrate from India and settle down in Australia. His
plans could not materialise because of the divorce from his wife. In such
circumstances, the attribution of motive by the prosecution stands proved.
29. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that when the wife of Gursewak Singh
(P.W.2) or the mother of Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) is suddenly killed in their
presence, they would not like the real accused to go scotfree. In the absence of
any previous motive, it is not at all comprehensible that they would falsely
10
implicate Gurpreet Singh. It was not a case where the Complainant had enmity
with someone and he concocted a story to implicate Gurpreet Singh post the
3
occurence. This Court, in Thoti Manohar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh ,
observed that in the incident, which transpired partly within the confines of the
house and extended slightly beyond the deceased's premises, the family members
and close relatives naturally become the witnesses. These individuals cannot be
considered incidental witnesses; instead, they emerge as the most natural
witnesses in the given factual context. Typically, a close relative is unlikely to
shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. While it is
acknowledged that emotions can run high and personal animosity may exist,
merely being related does not provide a valid basis for criticism; instead, familial
ties often serve as a reliable assurance of truth.
30. Most importantly, Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) narrated the entire occurrence
on a call made to the Police Control Room within ten minutes of the occurrence.
There could not be, in all probabilities, any meeting of the minds within a few
minutes after the occurence, so as to create a false narrative only to implicate
Gurpreet Singh. The unfiltered version of the Complainant, in our considered
opinion, conclusively establishes the veracity of his subsequent deposition. This
4
Court, in Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh , has categorically held that the
prompt lodging of an FIR helps dispel suspicions related to the potential
exaggeration of the involvement of individuals and adds credibility to the
prosecution's argument. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the firsthand account of
what happened and who was responsible for the offence in question. (See also:
Thulia Kali v. State Of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393, State of Punjab v.
3 (2012) SCC 7 723.
4 (2023) 10 SCC 470.
11
Surja Ram 1995 Supp (3) SCC 419, Girish Yadav v. State of M.P (1996) 8
SCC 186 and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC
158).
31. It is pertinent to refer to the endorsement of FIR No. 100, dated 18.07.2012,
where it is clearly mentioned that as soon as the information was received through
Police Control Room, a police party headed by SubInspector Hari Mittar along
with ASI Baldev Singh and four Head Constables reached the house of Gursewak
Singh (Complainant) at Tower Colony, Jagraon where the dead body of Amarjit
Kaur was lying near the stairs. The Complainant's statement was recorded, and
an intimation to this effect was sent to the higher officers and the Control Room.
This entire exercise got completed by 3.15 p.m. A report to this effect had already
been sent to the Ilaka Magistrate, and the dead body was brought for postmortem
at about 6.35 p.m. The presence of Gursewak Singh at the time of occurrence, his
prompt reporting of the crime, and the swift action taken by the police
immediately upon receipt of the said report, have cumulatively and unequivocally
established the prosecution case beyond any doubt.
32. This is also a matter of record that the weapon of crime, namely, the pistol,
was recovered from Gurpreet Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement. There is
overwhelming evidence, including the statement of S.I. Hari Mittar (P.W.9) to
establish the recovery of countrymade pistol at the instance of Gurpreet Singh.
The recovery of the weapon of crime, along with live cartridges and one empty
shell, has been elaborately explained by Hari Mittar (P.W.9) in his cross
examination, which inspires confidence. The statement of P.W.9, Hari Mittar has
been duly corroborated by ASI Baldev Singh (P.W.8) besides Head Constable
Sukhdev Singh (P.W.6).
12
33. The contention that none of the neighbours came forward to witness the
occurrence is totally illogical and a misconceived notion. The prosecution case is
that the occurrence took place inside the house. When the police reached the spot
immediately after the occurrence, the dead body was found lying inside the house
near the stairs. It is, thus, natural that the residents in the adjoining houses did
not see the occurrence. The shot was fired at close range, and, the people in the
neighbourhood obviously did not come to know about the incident. No adverse
inference can be drawn against the prosecution on this count. The time of
occurrence, i.e., 1.30 p.m., also indicates that most of the people in the
neighbourhood were inside their houses and could not be expected outside in the
streets keeping in view the hot and humid weather of July as it prevails in the
State of Punjab. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the reasons
assigned by the High Court while granting acquittal to Gurpreet Singh are totally
perverse and as a result of misreading of the evidence on record. In this view of
the matter, sustaining the acquittal of Gurpreet Singh, would amount to a
travesty of justice and it, thus, warrants interference by this Court in the exercise
of its jurisdiction, which we invoke sparingly. Consequently, the order of acquittal
passed by the High Court qua Gurpreet Singh cannot be sustained and is set
aside.
CQUITTAL RDER QUA THE O CCUSED
A O C A
34. Adverting to the prosecution case against Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep
Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) in the appeal arising out of CRAD1606
DB2015 (O&M) and Harpreet Singh, who was the appellant before the High Court
in CRR29422015(O&M), we are satisfied that the reasons assigned by the High
13
Court in support of their acquittal are possible and plausible. We say so in light
of the fact that (i) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2 – Complainant) did not mention their
names when he called the Police Control Room at 1.40 p.m. immediately after the
occurrence. (ii) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2 – Complainant) merely stated that there
were some unknown persons accompanying Gurpreet Singh (iii) In fact, P.W.2 and
3 both did not know the abovenamed three persons – who were nominated as co
accused of Gurpreet Singh. (iv) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) is claimed to have
recollected their names after about five hours of the occurrence. It is difficult to
accept how he recollected their names, more so when the prosecution did not
lead any further evidence as to how he knew them prior to the occurrence. (v) The
possibility of pointing out their names by someone else thus cannot be ruled out.
35. The Investigating Officer has also failed to disclose as to how he found these
respondents to be connected with the crime during the course of investigation.
There is no convincing explanation to implicate them as coaccused. There is also
not an iota of evidence to suggest that the Respondents (Kashmira Singh, Jagdeep
Singh and Harpreet Singh) had any meeting with Gurpreet Singh and/or they had
conspired with him for the execution of the crime. There is no specific motive
attributed to them. In such circumstances, the High Court seems right in
extending the benefit of doubt qua them.
ONCLUSION AND IRECTIONS
C D
36. For the reasons aforestated, the Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2024 @
SLP(Crl.)No.1852/2024 is allowed in part; the judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed
by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, acquitting Gurpreet
Singh of the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside, and that of the Trial Court
convicting him and sentencing him to life imprisonment is restored. The bail
14
bonds of Gurpreet Singh, if any, are hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender
and be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remainder of the sentence. The
appeal qua Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh is dismissed.
37. Criminal appeal No.665 of 2024 @ SLP(Crl.)No.1853 of 2024 against
acquittal of Harpreet Singh is dismissed.
38. The present appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
………..………………… J.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………………J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI
DATED : 06.02.2024
15
16