State of Punjab   [Appellant(s)] Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors.    [Respondent(s)]

(Criminal Appeal Nos.664­665 / 2024)

(2JB, SURYA KANT and K.V. VISWANATHAN JJ., delivered by SURYA KANT, J.)

Facts: The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowing Criminal Appeal filed by Gurpreet Singh, Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh (Respondent Nos. 1­3) and Criminal Revision filed by Harpreet Singh against their conviction awarded by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) vide judgments dated 29.09.2015 and 02.07.2015 respectively. The High Court has, through the impugned judgment, acquitted all the four Respondents of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’).

Issue: Whether a case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 136?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Mr. Gaurav Dhama, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab, argued that the High Court erred in acquitting the accused, by setting aside the well-­reasoned findings by the Trial Court, which categorically stated that based on the direct and unequivocal statements provided by both the witnesses, it was conclusively proved that Gurpreet Singh fired shots at Amarjit Kaur. The Complainant and the eyewitness, having lost a close family member in the incident, had no motive to protect the real accused or falsely implicate the innocent persons of committing the crime. Mr. Dhama vehemently contended that Gurpreet Singh harboured suspicions that the deceased played a big role in his divorce. He kept holding a grudge against her, which served as the motive for the murder. Additionally, the testimonies of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) and his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), distinctly indicated that soon after Amarjit Kaur was shot, she was discovered to be dead, prompting them to alert the   authorities.  Furthermore, P.W.3 provided a clear and unequivocal identification of the accused­Respondents as the assailants at the police station, which was substantiated by a proper identification in the court.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Per contra, Mr. Karan Dewan, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondents, urged   that this Court, in   exercise   of   the   power   under   Article   136   of   the Constitution, should be extremely cautious in   interfering   with   an   order   of acquittal passed by the High Court. Further, the offence took place in the broad daylight, it is quite strange that none of the neighbours witnessed the occurrence. He maintains that the High Court has rightly cast doubt on the prosecution’s case as   the   testimony   of   P.W.2   and   P.W.3   does   not   inspire   confidence.   He   also contended that P.W.3 was a married girl, and it was highly unlikely that she was attending classes from her paternal home despite getting married only a few months ago.

Held: The court disposed of the present appeal and held that, “the judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, acquitting Gurpreet Singh of the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside, and that of the Trial Court convicting him and sentencing him to life imprisonment is restored. The bail bonds of Gurpreet Singh, if any, are hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender and be taken into custody forthwith to serve the remainder of the sentence. The appeal qua Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh is dismissed.”