State of Punjab v. Gurdeep Kaur

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
C.K. Thakker
Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2008-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab

Respondents

Gurdip Kaur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Kuldip Singh
• R.K. Pandey
• T.P. Mishra
• H.S. Sandhu

Counsels for Respondents

• Varinder Kumar Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Punjab challenged the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s acquittal of Gurdeep Kaur in a murder case punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The two connected appeals originated in the trial of Sant Singh and others; Sant Singh was acquitted by the trial court. The High Court’s judgments in Criminal Appeals No. 1698/1995 and No. 328-DB of 1995 acquitted Gurdeep Kaur, on grounds including substantial delay in lodging the FIR, and delay in dispatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate, as well as the assertion that the eye‑witnesses were not credible and the medical evidence did not align with the ocular version. The State contended that the factors cited by the High Court could not automatically warrant acquittal, and that the overarching question was whether the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent’s counsel supported the High Court’s findings. The Supreme Court noted that delay in lodging FIR and in transmitting the report, coupled with inconsistent medical and ocular evidence, is not an inviolable rule of universal application to void a prosecution, but in this case the combined effect of the three factors left no doubt that the charges were not established. However, it held that the High Court’s view was plausible and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 r/w s. 34

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State’s counsel submitted that the factors weighed by the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be treated as determinative. Delay in lodging the FIR and in dispatching the report to the Elaka Magistrate, though relevant, should not automatically lead to acquittal if the prosecution’s evidence, taken as a whole, proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was urged that the appellate court should not adopt a rule of universal non-interference based on delay and should weigh all evidence before arriving at a verdict.

Contentions of Respondents

Gurdip Kaur’s counsel supported the High Court’s acquittal, emphasizing delays in FIR and report transmission, unreliability of eye-witnesses, and medical evidence that did not align with ocular testimony. The respondent asserted that the combined circumstantial and testimonial evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the High Court’s reasoning was sound and should not be disturbed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 305 A B t -~ ' ~ ## STATE OF PUNJAB II. GURDIP KAUR (Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2003) ## OCTOBER 21, 2008 ## **[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]** _Penal Code, 1860_ - _s. 302 rlw s. 34_ - _Conviction under_ - _Acquittal by High Court on the ground that there was delay_ c _in lodging FIR and in dispatching the report to area magistrate, evidence of eye-witnesses incredible and medical evidence at variance with ocular evidence_ - _Interference with_ - _Held: Not called for_ - _From the combined effect of all the factors, it is clear that prosecution failed to establish_ D _accusations_ - _Evidence_ - _Criminal trial._ CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2003. ·t- From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1997 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 16908/1995. Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and H.S. Sandhu for the Appellant. E F Varinder Kumar Sharma for the R~spondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT, J.** 1. Challenge is this appeal is G to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal _6._ of the respondent. Two appeals were filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 169'-DB of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. H 305 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. } A 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 B[connected appeals faced trial along with one Sant 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 submitted that there was c 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 and D also the medical evidence was clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecution version vulnerable. _1_ -* 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the factors which have weighed with the High Court to direct E[acquittal cannot be maintained. Learned counsel for the ] respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment. > 4. Though it cannot be laid 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 F 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 three factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the accusations. The view taken by the High Court is a possible G view and we do not consider this to be a fit case where any interference is called for. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. H[N.J. ] -t· .:\.