Blog

TITLE – Kaur v State of Punjab

Decided On- :16.06.2023

CRR-684-2007 (O&M)

CORAM:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

INTRODUCTION – False implication undermines the foundation of an inquiry, which must be carried out in good faith. The public may lose faith in the integrity of the judicial system if there are indications of corruption in ongoing procedures.

  FACTS OF THE CASE

Kaur, who is 16 years old and 4 months old and is enrolled in class XI, made a statement that led to the registration of FIR No. 132, dated August 16, 2003, against unidentified individuals under Sections 302/452/34 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act (later adding Section 120-B IPC and deleting Section 452 IPC). She fell asleep on a cot in the verandah at around 12.30 am. After about 15 to 20 minutes, she heard a sound coming from the room. She noticed two people approaching from the side of the still-under-construction kothi who were between the ages of 25 and 30 and who could be recognised if they were brought before her. One of them took the weapon, loaded it, and shot one of them in the After that, he shot her father in the right temple with the gun before fleeing the scene. When her father was admitted to the hospital, succumbed to the injuries

She was charged under Sections 302 IPC and 25(54)(59) of the Arms Act after a prima facie case was established; she pleaded not guilty and requested a trial. The Juvenile Justice Boar heard the case against the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and that the courts below had wrongfully convicted her because there was no credible evidence connecting her to the crime.

the motive behind the commission of the offence was not proved.

The actual genesis of the false implication of the petitioner was to disentitle her from inheriting the property in view of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . Petitioner who, according to her extrajudicial confession, committed the crime while under the influence of intoxicants,was cleared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. The claims made by PW1 Gulzar Singh and PW2 Balkar Singh are materially in conflict. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2000’s Section 15(1)(g)(ii) allows for sentences to be given for the time a juvenile is still considered to be one, and the maximum sentence that could have been given under the 2006 amendment to Section 15(1)(g) was three years, so the five-year sentence could not have been given.

 The deceased Milkha Singh died on account of a firearm injury. There were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the prosecution case rests solely upon circumstantial evidence. Several questions of law that arise for consideration

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION  

The court has heard all the witnesses brought by the prosecution but since the very base of the for the verdict to be passed should be substantive and not circumstantial.

In a case involving circumstantial evidence, the court must review the entire body of evidence and make sure that the only conclusion that can be drawn from it is the accused’s guilt. Contrarily, in the current case, there are glaring gaps in the evidence that this Court has found extremely challenging to fill in the string of facts and circumstances that were required to be painstakingly connected, making it far from being established-pointing to the petitioner’s guilt.

An offence is proven when there is sufficient evidence of it in the public record, not when the court finds that an accused person has committed a crime. In the absence of any compelling or reliable evidence to support these allegations, this Court finds it difficult to give them any credence.

The unavoidable conclusion of this Court is that the petitioner deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The contested judgments are hereby overturned. The petitioner’s provided bail bonds will no longer be valid.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi DesousaClick here to view judgement