Sukhjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

2. Filtering the unnecessary details the prosecution case as unfurled is that Swaran Kaur, lodged an FIR No. 173 at Page 1 2 P.S. 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. 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 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 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 Page 2 3 branch, Punjab Police and the said investigating agency on completion of the investigation placed the chargesheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magisrtrate, Kapurthala for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and the said court in turn committed the case to the court of Session vide order dated 25.08.2000.

4. The prosecution to substantiate it case examined Sadhu Singh, PW1, Harjit Sing, PW2, Gurmit Singh, PW3, Sadhu Singh son of Baai Singh, PW 4, Grandthi, PW5, the Inspector, Swaran Kaur, the informant, and Sukhdev Singh, PW7, ASI of Police. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed statement of the accused was recorded whose plea in defence was that Kuljit Kaur was wife married to one Labh Singh and she was involved in a case under Section 302 IPC and was in custody. To substantiate the plea, the defence examined four witnesses and brought Exhibit DA and DB on record.

5. The learned trial Judge accepted the testimony of the mother and the other witnesses and further placing reliance on the video recording of the marriage came to hold that the appellant and the Kuljit Kaur were husband and wife, hence Page 3 4 the plea that Labh Singh was the husband of Kuljit Kuar was not acceptable; and that Kuljit Kaur and the accused- appellant were last seen together and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the accused to explain about her disappearance. On the aforesaid base, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him as has been stated hereinabove.

Fairness therefore requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand. I do not suggest that every error or omission in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial because I am of opinion that errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the question in each case depends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to have been occasioned. In my opinion, the disregard of the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is so gross in this case that I feel there is grave likelihood of prejudice.”

14. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, there can be no scintilla of doubt that the when the requisite questions have not been put to the accused it has caused immense prejudice to him, more so, when there is no evidence to establish his complicity in the alleged abduction.

15. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court are set aside. As the accused is in custody, he shall be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

September 11, 2014.

Page 10