STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals by special leave have been preferred by the State of Punjab to assail the judgment dtd. 17/7/2014 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos. 580 of 2002 and 606 of 2002 whereby, the learned Division Bench, allowed the appeals preferred by the respondents(accused) and acquitted them while reversing the judgment dtd. 12/7/2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot(hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1998. The learned trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused as below: -

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that Randhir Singh(A1) was married to the deceased-Smt. Kuldeep Kaur @ Raj Kaur(hereinafter being referred to as 'victim'/'deceased') about 6 to 7 years prior to the date of incident, i.e. 24/8/1998. Randhir Singh(A1) and his elder brother Baldev Singh(A2) brought the victim to the Civil Hospital, Kotakpura in a seriously burnt condition(80% burns). The intimation regarding the arrival of a woman at the hospital in a burnt condition was sent to the concerned police station by the duty doctor vide ruqa(intimation) (Exhibit-PA) whereupon, Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) reached the hospital. In the intervening period, considering the serious condition of the victim, she was referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot(hereinafter being referred to as 'GGSMC Hospital'). Thereupon, Surjit Singh(PW-11) proceeded to the GGSMC Hospital and made an enquiry from the doctor attending the victim about her fitness to give a statement. At 9:30 am, the doctor vide endorsement(Exhibit-PF), declared the victim to be 'unfit' to make a statement. On the same day, at around 12:50 pm, the duty doctor, vide another endorsement(Exhibit-PG) declared that the victim was 'fit' to give her statement. Thereupon, at 1:30 pm Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) claims to have recorded a statement(Exhibit-PM) of the victim. At 2:00 pm, on the very same day, Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as the Executive Magistrate recorded the statement(Exhibit-PJ and PJ/1) of the victim under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as 'CrPC') and thereupon, a formal First Information Report(FIR)(Exhibit-PM/2) came to be registered.

(3.) Investigation was carried out and the charge sheet was filed against Surjit Kaur @ Seeto(A3), mother-in-law of the deceased and Randhir Singh(A1), husband of the deceased for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and Babu Singh(A5), father-inlaw of the deceased, Karamjit Kaur @ Pappi(A4), sister-in law(jethani) and Baldev Singh(A2), brother-in-law(jeth)) for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Since the offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed and made over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the five accused as per the charge sheet. The accused abjured their guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents in the following order: -