LexPREM KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 2 S.C.R. 1095 PREM KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 1364 of 2008) APRIL 25, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: ss. 376, 363, 148, 323, 149, 342 and 506 - Accused persons including father and son stated to have beaten, raped and tortured a labourer - Acquittal by trial court, affirmed A B c by High Court - Held: A judgment must show proper application of mind by Presiding Officer of the court, that there 0 was proper evaluation of all the evidence on record, and that the conclusion is based on appreciation/ evaluation of evidence - Every court is duty bound to state reasons for its conclusions - In the instant case, trial court did not decide the case giving adherence to provisions of s. 354 CrPC - It did E not record any sound reasoning for acquittal, though it had been the case of prosecutrix that she remained hospitalized - She had deposed in court that she had been subjected to the crime stated - High Court was also swayed by reasoning recorded by trial court without making much effort to find out the truth in the case - Courts below have dealt with the matter F in a very summary fashion - The statements of reasons, for the conclusion reached by them, which could have been more enlightening, are missing - Judgments of courts below do not comply with requirement of statutory provisions as laid down in Cr.P. C - The view taken by courts below is manifestly G unreasonable and has resulted in miscarriage of justice - Courts below ought not to have given the defective and cryptic judgment - In fact it is no judgment in the eyes of the law - 1095 H 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R. A The Court is not in a position to judge the correctness, legality and propriety of findings recorded by courts below - Absence of sound reasons is not a mere irregularity, but a patent illegality - Judicial insensitiveness shown by trial court, and High Court is disturbing - Whether the a/legation is correct or B not, has to be examined on the basis of the evidence on record and such an issue cannot be decided merely by observing that it is improbable - The manner in which courts below have dealt with the case, cannot be approved - Judgments of courts below are set aside and the case is c remanded to trial court to decide afresh on the basis of the evidence/material on record - In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court will hear the arguments advanced from both sides, and deal with each and every piece · of evidence, taking into consideration the defence taken by 0 the accused persons, in their respective statements uls 313 Cr.P.C., and record findings, in accordance with law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 354 - Judgments. CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN: E Sexual assault - Sensitiveness to be shown by courts while dealing with the case - Penal Code, 1860. H.B. Gandhi & Ors. v. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312; Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. Collector of F Central Excise, Cochin, AIR 1994 SC 1341; Ku/deep Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 594 = AIR 1999 SC 677 Gaya Din & Ors. v. Hanuman Prasad & Ors AIR 2001 SC 386 Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration, 1985 (1) SCR 866 = AIR 1984 SC 1805; Satyavir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 (2) SCR 729 G = (2010) 3 SCC 174; State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh & Karam Singh, 1974 (1) SCR 328 =AIR 1973 SC 2407; Mukhtiar Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) SCR 38 = AIR 1995 SC 686 - referred to. H PREM KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 1097 Case Law Reference: 1992 Supp. (2) sec 312 referred to para 11 AIR 1994 SC 1341 referred to para 12 1998 (3) Suppl. SCR 594 referred to para 13 AIR 2001 SC 386 referred to para 14 1985 (1) SCR 866 referred to para 15 2010 (2) SCR 729 referred to para 16 1974 (1) SCR 328 referred to para 19 1995 (1) SCR 38 referred to para 20 CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1364 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2006 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Revision No. 392 of 2001. A B c D D.K. Thakur.Dr. V.P. Appan, D. Jha for the Appellant. E V. Madhukar MG, Shivani Mahipal, Rajat Kapoor, Anis Ahmed Khan, Anvita Cowshish, S. Rajita Mathur (for Kuldip Singh) for the Respondents. · The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER F 1. This app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.