Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a Criminal Revision Petition challenging judgment dated 12-03-2007 dismissing appeal against Juvenile Justice Board’s judgment dated 22-07-2005 convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offences under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 25 of Arms Act, Aman Chaudhary, J. set aside both the judgments while highlighting ‘yawning gaps’ in the evidence.
The instant offence was registered on 16-08-2003 under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC against unknown persons on the statement by the petitioner who was 16 years and 4 months old studying in class 11. She stated that she witnessed her father being shot with a gun by two people late at night. However, she allegedly made an extra-judicial confession 8-10 days after the occurrence that she herself committed the said crime at the instance of another, which was informed to the police, and she was arrested after more than 2 months on 23-10-2003. A final report was submitted against her, and she was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.
She pleaded innocence during trial and specifically stated about her father being killed by unidentified persons while alleging false implication. The Trial Court found strength in the prosecution case, convicted and sentenced the petitioner. Appeal against the same before Additional Sessions Judge was also dismissed, which has been challenged in the instant matter.
The counsel for petitioner pointed out all the lapses in prosecution case regarding FSL report, weapon, statements of other family members not being recorded, etc. and pointed fingers that false implication of the petitioner was to disentitle her from inheritance of property as against Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It was also informed that a civil suit was also filed by the petitioner’s grandmother, mother and brother against her. It was also pointed out that the person before whom the petitioner allegedly extra-judicially confessed commitment of crime was also acquitted of charge under Section 302 and 120-B of IPC by the Trial Court.
The Prosecution justified the conviction for the motive that the deceased had objected to her relationship with the co-accused. The consideration of civil proceedings initiated against the petitioner after her conviction, or statements of any other person involved were objected.
The Court highlighted the nature of the instant case relying on circumstantial evidence wherein, crime was registered at the instance of petitioner. The theory of all other family members being unconscious was mentioned by one witness and untouched by the other, while they entered the deceased’s house together. The fact that statements of none of the family members were recorded was also raised by the Court. Also, no evidence of intoxicant tablets was found at the spot or inquiry over the purchase or hand over to the petitioner.
The Court pointed out that the instant conviction was done on the basis of alleged extra-judicial confession of the petitioner, while the person before whom she confessed stated to be on visiting terms with the family but did not even attend the deceased’s Bhog Ceremony. The Court highlighted the delay in information to the police regarding the extra-judicial confession and expressed that “For the petitioner to have chosen him to confide in, appears to be incogitable” and that “there is lack of corroboration to the same from any quarter, further denuding it of reliance”.
The Court referred to Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 which laid principles on admissibility of extra-judicial confession and explained that “There is no specific mathematical formula that exists to definitively and conclusively determine the veracity of a prosecution or defense case. The same relies on the evidence presented in an individual case, based on the testimonies and demeanor, clarity, credibility of witnesses, and, ultimately, the conscience of the Court evoked by the evidence adduced.”
On the vital piece of evidence in the form of gun being amiss, the Court found it difficult to rely on statement to link the said gun with the petitioner. The Court relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 and reiterated the Court’s duty to examine evidence in its entirety in case of circumstantial evidence to ensure that the only inference can be the guilt of the accused. The Court highlighted that “In the case at hand, contrarily there are the yawning gaps in the evidence which this Court has found very difficult to bridge in the chain of facts and circumstances that were required to be meticulously connected, rendering it far from being established-pointing to the guilt of the petitioner.”
The Court referred to a catena of cases and expressed that “Mere suspicion or circumstantial doubt cannot absolve the prosecution from its fundamental obligation to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused, for suspicion, regardless of its intensity, holds no evidentiary value.” It further commented that the Trial Court got swayed away in sentiments on the alleged crime of patricide while convicting the petitioner.
The Court came to an ‘ineluctable conclusion’ that the petitioner was entitled to benefit of doubt and set aside the impugned judgments convicting the petitioner.
[Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 831, decided on 16-06-2023]
Judgment/Order by: Justice Aman Chaudhary
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate Pradeep Virk;
For State: Deputy Advocate General Manipal Singh Atwal.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
