SUKHJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 11-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 608 
SUKHJIT SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2014. 
[DIPAK MISRA AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
s.364 - Conviction and,sentence of 10 years RI to 
accused husband - Affirmed by High Court - The evidence 
shows that the victim-wife remained in jail - None of the 
witnesses have stated anything about abduCtion - _Judgment 
of courts below set aside - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 
D - s.313. 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s.313 -
Statement of accused -
When requisite 
questions have not been put to accused it has caused 
E immense prejudice to him, more so, when there is no 
evidence to establish his complicity in the alleged abduction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The evidence of the mother of victim 
F 
demonstrates that the victim had remained in Central Jail 
and she was not aware of the year when she remained 
in jail. The factum of her being in jail also gets support 
from the documents Exts. DA and DB. That apart, none 
of the witnesses have stated anything about the 
G abduction. [para 9] [612-F-G] 
1.2. No incriminating material has been brought to 
the notice of the accused while putting questions u/s 313 
CrPC. There can be no scintilla of doubt that the when 
H 
608 
SUKHJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
609 
the requisite questions have not been put to the accused A 
it has caused immense prejudice to him, more so, when 
there is no evidehce to establish his complicity in the 
alleged abduction. The judgment of conviction and order 
of sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed by 
the High Court is set aside. [para 10, 14 and 15] [613·A; 
B 
615-G-H; 616-A] 
Ranvir 
Yadav 
v. 
State 
of 
Bihar 
2009 
(7) SCR 653 = 2009(6) SCC 595; Tara Singh v. The 
State 1951 SCR 729 =1951 AIR 441; Hate Singh Bhagat 
Singh v. State of Madhaya Bharat AIR 1953 SC 468, Ajay C 
Singh v. State of Mahrashtra 2007 (7) SCR 983 = 2007 
(12) sec 341 - relied on 
Case Law Reference: 
2009 (7) SCR 653 
1951 SCR 729 
AIR 1953 SC 468 
2007 (7) SCR 983 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
relied on 
para 10 
para 11 
para 12 
para 13 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 263 of 2013. 
D 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2012 of the · 
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal 
F 
Appeal No. 978-SB of 2003. 
R. K. Talwar, Harikesh, Chander Shekhar Ashri for the 
Appellant. 
V. Madhukar, AAG., Anvita Gowshish, Kuldip Singh for the G 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The present appeal, by special leave, 
H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
is preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and order 
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 
in Criminal Appeal No. 978-SB of 2003 whereby the learned 
Single Judge has affirmed the conviction recorded by the 
learned trial Judge under Section 364 IPC and maintained the 
B 
sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of 
Rs.5000/-, with the default clause. 
2. Filtering the unnecessary details the prosecution case 
as unfurled is that Swaran Kaur, lodged an FIR No. 173 at P.S. 
C 
Kotwali, District Kapurthatla on 15.10.1998 alleging that the 
marriage between her daughter, Kuljit Kaur, was solemnized 
with the accused-appellant as per religious rites on 7 .1.1991 
and in the wedlock a son, namely, Manpreet Singh, was born. 
There was incompatibility between the husband and wife as a 
consequence of which the accused was ill treating Kuljit Kaur. 
D 
Initially both of them were staying in a rented house at 
Kapurthala but in March 1998 they shifted to another rented 
house situate in Mohalla Preet Nagar, Near Jhanda Mal School, 
Kapurthala, and started residing there. The informant used to 
go to her daughter's house and sometime in May 1998 when 
E 
she went to meet her daughter she was informed by the landlord 
that the tenants had vacated the house on 27/28.04.1998 and 
had left for Ludhiana. The further case of the prosecution is that 
when the accused had taken Kuljit Kaur with the intention to put 
F 
an end to her life spark. 
3. After the criminal law was set in motion the concerned 
investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses. It is 
apt to note here that on the basis of an order passed in a writ 
petition the investigation was entrusted to the crime branch, 
G 
Punjab Police and the said investigating agency on completion 
of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.