9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US SELVI J. JAYALALITHA AND ORS. AND K. ANBAZHAGAN VERSUS SELVI J. JAYALALITHA AND ORS. ETC. AND INDO DOHA CHEMICALS PHARMACEUTICALS AND ORS. ETC [ 2017 (2) TMI 926 - SUPREME COURT ] does acknowledge that a judgment 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Yadav, Adv. 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, CRA-D-1606-DB-2015 (O M) filed by Gurpreet Singh, Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh (Respondent Nos. 1-3) and Criminal Revision, CRR-2942-2015 (O M) filed by Harpreet Singh against their conviction awarded by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (hereinafter, Trial Court ) vide judgments dated 29.09.2015 and 02.07.2015 respectively. The High 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 ). FACTS: 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 co-accused, Harpreet Singh and Kashmira Singh, in his first version, and he is stated to have re-collected 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 in-laws' 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE 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 well-reasoned 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 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 A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 drawing-room 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erpetrators 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 cannot at all countenance that a daughter, after her marriage, would permanently stay at her in-laws' house and would not visit her parents after her marriage. Such a sweep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 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 Court, in Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2023) 10 SCC 470] , 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 first-hand account of what happened and who was responsible for the offence in question. (See also: Thulia Kali v. Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. ACQUITTAL ORDER QUA THE CO - ACCUSED 34. Adverting to the prosecution case against Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) in the appeal arising out of CRA-D-1606- DB-2015 (O M) and Harpreet Singh, who was the appellant before the High Court in CRR-2942-2015(O M), we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
