State Of Punjab vs Randhir Singh

2024 INSC 489 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 660-661 OF 2015

STATE OF PUNJAB .…APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

RANDHIR SINGH ETC. ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by the

State of Punjab to assail the judgment dated 17th July, 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 dated 12th July, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

convicted and sentenced the accused as below: -

geeta ahuja Date: 2024.07.09 16:18:10 IST Reason:

1

Randhir Singh U/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code(hereinafter being referred to (Accused No. as ‘IPC’) and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with fine

1)(A1) amounting to Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, each.

Surjit Kaur alias U/s 302 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life with Seeto fine amounting to Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine (Accused No. to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, each.

3)(A3)

Baldev Singh U/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for (Accused No. life with fine amounting to Rs. 1000/- and in default of

2)(A2) payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, each.

Karamjit Kaur U/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and awarded rigorous imprisonment for (Accused No. life with fine amounting to Rs. 1000/- and in default of

4)(A4) payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, each.

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. 24th August, 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

2 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 Section 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 Section 302 IPC and Babu Singh(A5), father-in-

law of the deceased, Karamjit Kaur @ Pappi(A4), sister-in-

3 law(jethani) and Baldev Singh(A2), brother-in-law(jeth)) for the

offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Since the offence punishable under Section 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: -

Prosecution Witness(‘PW’) Role/Position

PW1- Dr. M.S. Sandhu Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Kotkapura

PW2- HC Jarnail Singh Police Station Sadar Kotkapura

PW3- Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu Head Quarter Government Medical College, Patiala

PW4- Guddi Sister of Kuldeep Kaur (Deceased)

PW5- Thana Singh Brother of Kuldeep Kaur (Deceased)

PW6- Mohinder Singh Member of Panchayat, Ajit Gill

PW7- Ramesh Kumar Jain Naib Tehsildar, Faridkot

PW8- Dharam Singh Draftsman, Faridkot

PW9- Dr. Manjit Singh SMO, Registrar, Surgery, GGS Medical College, Faridkot

PW10-Raj Rani Record Keeper, GGS Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot

PW11- Surjit Singh ASI, CIA Staff, Moga

Exhibit No.(s) Exhibit

Exhibit PA Information regarding burn Case

4 Exhibit PB Affidavit

Exhibit PC Postmortem Report

Exhibit PC/1 Pictorial Diagram of the Injuries

Exhibit PD Police request for conducting PMR.

Exhibit PE Inquest report & opinion signed by PW3

Exhibit PF, and Request to police and opinion of doctor Exhibit PF/1

Exhibit PG and Request to the doctor In-Charge of G.G.G. Medical College and Hospital as Exhibit PG/1 to whether the patient is fit to make the statement or not.

Ex.PJ & ExPJ/1 Statement of Kuldeep Kaur(victim)

Ex.PK Map

ExPL Bed Head Ticket

Ex.PL & ExPL1 Request to Tehsildar & opinion of doctor regarding statement

Ex.PM/Ex.PM/1 Statement of Kuldeep Kaur

Ex. PM/2 Copy of FIR

Ex.PN Map

Ex. PO Recovery Memo

Ex. D/1, ExD/2, ExD/3 Case entries of registrars, Ration card

4. The accused were questioned under Section 313 CrPC and

upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing in the

prosecution evidence, they denied the same and took a plea of

innocence and false implication. Randhir Singh(A1) stated that the

deceased had received burn injuries in an accidental fire whereas,

Karamjit Kaur @ Pappi(A4) and Baldev Singh(A2) pleaded that they

had been living separately from the deceased and her husband

since long and had no role to play in the incident. Five witnesses

were examined by the defence in the following order:

5

Defence Witness[s] (‘DW’) Role/Position

DW-1 Ran Singh Head Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Kaleke, District Moga

DW2- Manminder Kaur Teacher, Government Primary School, Kaleke

DW3- Balwinder Singh Teacher, Adarsh Public School, Kaleke

DW4- Kartar Singh Inspector Food Supply Grade I, Baghapurana

DW5- Kewal Singh Labourer, Panj Grain Kalan

5. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsels,

appreciated the evidence available on record, and vide judgment

dated 12th July, 2002, proceeded to convict Surjit Kaur @ Seeto(A3)

and Randhir Singh(A1) for the offence punishable under Section

302 IPC, whereas, Karamjeet Kaur(A4) and Baldev Singh(A2) were

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read

with Section 34 IPC. Each accused was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay the fine of Rs.1,000/-

each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two months. However, Babu

Singh(A5) was acquitted by the trial Court on the reasoning that

prosecution failed to produce any evidence regarding his

participation in the commission of the alleged offence.

6. The accused preferred two appeals referred to supra, before

the High Court of Punjab and Haryana assailing the judgment of

6 the trial Court. The Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana, vide common judgment dated 17th July, 2014,

allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment rendered by the trial

Court and acquitted the accused of the charges. The common

judgment dated 17th July, 2014 rendered by the Division Bench of

the Punjab and Haryana High Court is subjected to challenge by

the State in these two appeals.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant-State: -

7. Shri Vivek Jain, Deputy Advocate General, learned counsel

appearing for the State of Punjab, vehemently and fervently

contended that the judgment rendered by the High Court is

unsustainable in facts as well as in law. He urged that there is

unimpeachable evidence on record to show that the victim, Smt.

Kuldeep Kaur @ Raj Kaur, was being harassed and humiliated by

the respondents(accused) in the matrimonial home. He contended

that husband, Randhir Singh(A1) was indulged in an illicit

relationship with his sister-in-law, Karamjit Kaur(A4) and when

the deceased raised objection to this illicit relationship, she was

beaten up by her husband, Randhir Singh(A1). The deceased was

also subjected to character assassination by her in-laws. She was

set to fire by her in-laws in the matrimonial home with the 7 intention of eliminating her. The burn injuries were so serious that

the victim succumbed just three days after the incident i.e. on 27th

August, 1998. He urged that two dying declarations of the

deceased were recorded, first by Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) and the

second by Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as an

Executive Magistrate. In the first dying declaration(Exhibit-PM)

recorded by Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11), the deceased made

categorical allegations that her husband, Randhir Singh(A1) and

her in-laws, namely, Baldev Singh(Jeth)(A2), Babu Singh(father-in-

law)(A5), Surjit Kaur @ Seeto(mother-in-law)(A3), Karamjit

Kaur(Jethani)(A4) subjected her to harassment, torture and often

used filthy language towards her. The deceased also stated that in

the morning of 24th August, 1998 at about 5:00 am, she overheard

her Jeth(A2), husband(A1), father-in-law(A5) and Jethani(A4)

talking to each other. She went to prepare tea for herself

whereupon, her Jeth(A2) extorted that kerosene oil should be

poured on her. Randhir Singh(A1) thereupon, immobilized her by

catching hold of her hair and poured kerosene oil on her. Karamjit

Kaur(A4) suggested that she should be set to fire whereupon, Surjit

Kaur(A3) set her ablaze with a matchstick. She rushed outside and

raised a hue and cry on which the neighbours came and

8 extinguished the fire. She also stated that the motive behind the

incident was that her husband, Randhir Singh(A1) was indulged

in an illicit relationship with her jethani Karamjit Kaur (A4), to

which she had objected. Fuelled by this motive, the accused acting

with common intention had set her on fire. The second dying

declaration of the deceased(Exhibit-PJ) was recorded by Ramesh

Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as an Executive

Magistrate and the same reads as below: -

“I state that my marriage about seven years ago. No child born to me. My husband earns livelihood by doing labour work. In the morning at 4 am it was dark, the people of my house set me on fire but I do not know who had lit the match box and set me on fire. I was turned out from the house after giving me beating. I prepared tea on the stove. We used to prepare meals etc. on the stove. When I caught fire I raised alarm. Then the people of our house and neighbour extinguished the fire. My husband brought me to the hospital and got me admitted.”

8. Learned State counsel contended that there is no reason to

doubt the dying declaration(Exhibit-PM) recorded by Surjit Singh,

ASI(PW-11). His contention was that even otherwise, there are no

significant contradictions in the two dying declarations i.e.

Exhibit-PM and Exhibit-PJ, so as to discard one in preference to

the other. He further urged that even in the dying

declaration(Exhibit-PJ) recorded by the Executive Magistrate, the

deceased categorically stated that the people of her house had set

9 her on fire. As per learned counsel, the respondents herein were

the only persons present in the house when the incident took place

and thus, it can safely be presumed that while referring to the

people of her house, the victim was indicating about the accused-

respondents as her assailants.

9. Learned counsel vehemently urged that the trial Court, upon

a thorough appreciation of the evidence on record came to the only

possible and logical conclusion that the dying declaration(Exhibit-

PM) was a reliable piece of evidence and that the conviction of the

accused was justifiably based thereupon, by the trial Court. He

urged that the High Court committed a grave error in holding that

the first dying declaration(Exhibit-PM) recorded by Surjit Singh,

ASI(PW-11) was suspicious and unreliable. He contended that the

dying declaration(Exhibit-PM) was recorded after taking opinion

regarding fitness of the victim, to give such statement, from the

duty doctor(PW-9) and the FIR came to be promptly registered on

the basis of said dying declaration and hence, there is no

justification whatsoever to cast a doubt on the said dying

declaration(Exhibit-PM). He submitted that Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-

11) had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons and

10 thus there was no reason as to why he could create a false dying

declaration of the deceased.

10. Learned counsel further urged that the witnesses Guddi(PW-

4), Thana Singh(PW-5) and Mohinder Singh(PW-6) gave reliable

evidence regarding the oral dying declaration made by the victim

at the hospital in their presence. The said oral dying declaration

was almost on the same lines as the dying declaration(Exhibit-PM)

recorded by the Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11). He thus contended that

the judgment rendered by the High Court is based purely on

conjectures and surmises inasmuch as the most significant and

unimpeachable evidence being the dying declaration(Exhibit-PM)

admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 32 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 was brushed aside by the High Court without

assigning cogent reasons. He further urged that the victim had

categorically stated that she was being harassed in her

matrimonial home by her in-laws for the reason that her husband,

Randhir Singh(A1) was indulged in an illicit affair with her sister-

in-law Karamjit Kaur(A4). This illicit affair led to holding of a

panchayat on a complaint by the victim’s maternal relatives and

hence, it can safely be concluded that the accused had strong

motive to eliminate the victim.

11

11. Learned counsel, thus, urged that the High Court committed

an error apparent on the face of the record while accepting the

appeals of the accused and acquitting them of the charges. His

fervent plea was that the view taken by the trial Court is the only

possible view of the matter and thus, the appeal deserves to be

allowed and the respondents should be convicted while reversing

the judgment rendered by the High Court.

12. On these submissions, learned counsel for the State implored

the Court to accept the appeals, reverse the judgment of the High

Court and restore the conviction of the accused as recorded by the

trial Court.

Submissions on behalf of the respondents: -

13. Learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of learned

counsel for the State. He urged that the High Court has rightly

held that the dying declaration(Exhibit-PM) recorded by Surjit

Singh, ASI(PW-11) was a post-investigation document

manufactured with an aim to falsely implicate the accused acting

at the behest of Thana Singh(PW-5), brother of deceased who was

also a Police Officer. He urged that Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) did

not make any effort to call the concerned Magistrate at that instant 12 moment, however, he himself recorded the statement of the

deceased(Exhibit-PM) at 1:30 pm on 24th August, 1998. Later on,

he moved an application to the SDO with a request to record the

statement of the victim. However, he was surprisingly unavailable

when Ramesh Kumar Jain(PW-7), Executive Magistrate recorded

the victim’s statement(Exhibit-PJ). He further urged that in the

dying declaration(Exhibit-PJ) made before Ramesh Kumar Jain,

Naib Tehsildar(PW-7), the deceased did not specifically refer to any

family member about who had set her on fire. She did not make

any allegation about ill treatment being meted out to her at the

matrimonial home. Rather, she stated that she had no idea about

who lit the matchbox and set her on fire. She also stated that it

was her husband, Randhir Singh(A1) who brought her to the

hospital and got her admitted for treatment. Thus, the dying

declaration(Exhibit-PM) made before Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) is

apparently a subsequently created document and was rightly

discarded by the High Court. He contended that the conviction of

the accused was rightly interfered by the High Court and that the

impugned judgment does not warrant any interference by this

Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents

13 implored the Court to dismiss the appeals and affirm the impugned

judgment.

Discussion & Conclusions: -

14. Since these are appeals against acquittal, a detailed and

elaborate discussion of the evidence is not necessary because the

law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court

that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very

limited. If two views are possible, one favourable to the accused

and the other favourable to the prosecution, the former would

prevail. An interference with the judgment of acquittal is only

permissible if the same suffers from patent illegality, perversity or

misreading of the evidence available on record. Reference in this

regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of

Thakore Umedsing Nathusing v. State of Gujarat.1

15. Keeping the above principles in mind, we shall now proceed

to analyse the evidence available on record.

16. At the trial, the prosecution examined Guddi(PW-4), the sister

of the deceased, Thana Singh(PW-5), brother of the deceased and

Mohinder Singh(PW-6), panchayat member in order to prove the

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 320

14 theory that the deceased was being maltreated in her matrimonial

home. Guddi(PW-4) stated that her sister Smt. Kuldeep Kaur @ Raj

Kaur(deceased) was married to Randhir Singh(A1) about 6 to 7

years back and that she was the mediator who had arranged their

marriage. The witness(PW-4) stated that her sister had been

complaining to her that the accused persons had been casting

aspersions on her character. The witness(PW-4) also imputed that

Randhir Singh(A1) was indulged in an illicit relationship with

Karamjit Kaur(A4) and that her sister(deceased) was objecting to

the same and resultantly, she was beaten up by her husband. The

witness(PW-4) further stated that about an year ago, she along

with her husband, Faqir Singh went to the village, Panj Grain

Kalan to see her sister. When they reached the matrimonial home

of her sister at about 7:00 am, they found that she had been burnt

and was crying out. At that time, no other family member was

present in the house. Her sister(victim) told that, at about 5:00 am,

while she was preparing tea, all the five accused persons were

planning to murder her and that on the paraenesis of Baldev

Singh(A2) and Karamjeet Kaur(A4), Randhir Singh(A1) immobilized

and poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter, Surjit Kaur(A3) set

her ablaze with a matchstick. She rushed out of the house and

15 raised an alarm, whereupon the neighbours extinguished the fire.

The witness(PW-4), admitted in her cross-examination that her

brother Thana Singh(PW-5) was working in the police department.

After seeing her sister in a burnt condition, she and her husband

proceeded to the village, Ajit Gill, to inform her brothers. It took

them about one and half hours to reach the said village. From

there, she along with her brothers again returned to the village,

Panj Grain Kalan, in the afternoon. At that time, her sister(victim)

was not to be seen in the house. Thereafter, they went to the

GGSMC Hospital where her sister(victim) was admitted and was

writhing with pain. She stated that while her sister(victim) was

admitted in the hospital, she was conscious and was narrating the

incident to all present there, including her brothers. The

witness(PW-4) feigned ignorance as to whether the police visited

the hospital or not. She stated that her brothers and other relatives

were present besides Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(victim) till her death. The

witness(PW-4) further stated that it was after the death of her

sister(deceased) that the police came to the hospital. She feigned

ignorance about the place of posting of her brother, Thana

Singh(PW-5) at the time of occurrence.

16

17. Thana Singh(PW-5) deposed that his sister(deceased) was

married to Randhir Singh(A1) about 6-7 years ago. After the

marriage, all the accused persons started maltreating his sister by

casting aspersions on her character. He stated that her

sister(deceased) often complained about these incidents of cruelty

by her in-laws, when she came to the village. Thereupon, a

panchayat was convened wherein the accused were advised not to

maltreat his sister(deceased). The accused agreed to stop the

maltreatment, but sometime later, they re-indulged in the acts of

cruelty with his sister. He came to know from his sister Guddi(PW-

4) that Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(victim) had been set ablaze by the

accused on which, he proceeded to the GGSMC Hospital and found

her lying on the bed of the hospital in a burnt condition. The

witness(PW-5) further stated that Smt. Kuldeep Kaur made an oral

dying declaration holding the accused responsible for her

condition. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that he

was posted at the District Jail, Faridkot at the time of the incident

and that the GGSMC Hospital is located just nearby. He also stated

that in the preceding years, two panchayats had been convened.

The last panchayat took place about 2-3 years, before the death of

his sister(deceased) wherein an oral compromise had been arrived

17 among the deceased and her in-laws. The witness further stated

that he was informed about the incident by his sister Guddi(PW-4)

who came to his village, Ajit Gill, at about 9:00 am. From there,

they proceeded to the GGSMC Hospital. However, before reaching

to the hospital, they went to the village, Panj Grain Kalan, and

observed the place where the incident occurred. The witness(PW-

5) admitted in his cross-examination that accused Baldev

Singh(A2) had been residing separately from his father and brother

for the last 6-7 years and was running a separate kitchen. Baldev

Singh(A2) was married to Karamjit Kaur(A4). The witness feigned

ignorance to the suggestion that his sister(deceased) was got

admitted to the GGSMC Hospital by her husband, Randhir

Singh(A1).

18. Mohinder Singh(PW-6), a resident of village, Ajit Gill deposed

about the panchayat meetings held a few years ago to resolve the

strife between the deceased and accused. The witness stated that

he went to the GGSMC Hospital along with the other relatives of

the victim on the date of incident where Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(victim)

made an oral dying declaration in their presence.

19. Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as the

Executive Magistrate, deposed that he recorded the statement of

18 the deceased(Exhibit-PJ and PJ/1). In cross-examination, the

witness stated that Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) had brought an order

of the SDM for recording the statement of the victim. However,

Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) did not tell him anything about the

victim’s condition. The witness moved an application to the doctor

to seek an opinion about the fitness of the victim to give the

statement. He also stated that, many persons including the

relatives of the victim were present beside her when he visited the

GGSMC Hospital.

20. Dr. Manjit Singh, SMO, Registrar Surgery posted in GGSMC

Hospital was examined as PW-9. He stated that Smt. Kuldeep

Kaur(victim) was admitted in the female surgical ward-I on 24th

August, 1998 in a burnt condition having 85% burns. At 12:50

pm, upon police request, he certified that the victim was fit to give

her statement. Thereafter, at 2:00 pm, upon a request by the

Executive Magistrate, he gave another fitness certificate vide

endorsement(Exhibit-P6) regarding the victim being fit to give

statement. He stated that the victim expired on 27th August, 1998

at 8:20 pm.

21. Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) is the star witness of the

prosecution. He testified that upon receiving

19 ruqa(intimation)(Exhibit-PA) from the hospital, he along with other

officials went to the Civil Hospital, Kotkapura where information

was provided that considering the gravity of the victim’s condition,

she had been shifted to GGSMC Hospital. At 9:30 AM, he moved

an application(Exhibit-PF/1) seeking certificate of fitness of the

victim on which, the doctor(PW-9) gave an opinion that the victim

was not in a condition to make a statement. He moved another

application(Exhibit-PG/1) on which the doctor certified that the

victim was fit to make a statement. Pursuant thereto, he recorded

the statement of the victim(Exhibit-PM) which was read over to her

and her thumb impression was appended thereupon. He

forwarded the statement(Exhibit-PM) to the police station on the

basis whereof, an FIR (Exhibit-PM/2) was registered by Joginder

Singh, ASI. He submitted an application(Exhibit-PH) to the SDO

for recording the statement of the burn victim whereupon, Ramesh

Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as the Executive

Magistrate was deputed for the task.

22. PW-11 further stated that Naib Tehsildar came to the

hospital, and obtained the certificate of fitness from the doctor and

thereafter, he recorded the statement of the victim(Exhibit-PJ).

However, at the time of recording, PW-11 was not present at the

20 GGSMC Hospital. PW-11 also stated that he recorded the

statement of the victim at 1:30 pm and at that time, all the relatives

of the victim were present besides her. Initially, the victim was

declared unfit for making statement by the doctor at 9:30 am, but

later on, a certificate of fitness was given at 12:50 pm. He reached

the office of the SDM, Faridkot at 1:35 pm. However, he did not

narrate any facts to Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7).

He gave him the application and the order of the SDM. Thereafter,

he reached back to the hospital along with the Naib Tehsildar(PW-

7) at about 1:55 pm.

23. Ran Singh, Head Teacher(DW-1), Manminder Kaur,

Teacher(DW-2) and Balwinder Singh, Teacher(DW-3) were

examined in defence to prove the fact that Navjot Kaur and

Parbhjot Kaur[daughters of Baldev Singh(A2)] were studying in a

Government school at village Kaleke.

24. Kewal Singh(DW-5) stated that his house is situated on the

southern side of the house of Randhir Singh(A1). He heard some

cries and rushed to the house of Randhir Singh(A1) who was

extinguishing his wife’s fire. The lady stated to him that she

suddenly caught fire. He also stated that the deceased categorically

spoke that nobody had set her to fire. No significant cross-

21 examination was made from this witness(DW-5) by the prosecution

and thus, his evidence virtually remained uncontroverted.

25. The prosecution incipiently prophesies upon the two dying

declarations made by the deceased, one recorded by Surjit Singh

ASI(PW-11), i.e. Exhibit-PM and the other recorded by Ramesh

Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as Executive Magistrate,

i.e. Exhibit-PJ It may be stated that in the dying declaration, i.e.

Exhibit-PJ, the victim did not take the names of any particular

accused in the act of setting her on fire. Rather, she made a

general and vague allegation that the people of her house had set

her on fire, but she could not say who had lit the match box and

set her on fire. On the contrary, in the dying declaration(Exhibit-

PM), detailed allegations were set out regarding the manner in

which the accused caught hold of her, poured kerosene on her

body and then set her on fire.

26. Having taken note of the manifest contradictions in the two

dying declarations, we now proceed to briefly recapitulate the

consequential peculiarities as emerging from the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses.

27. Dr. M.S. Sandhu, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,

Kotakpura(PW-1) stated that the victim was brought to the civil 22 hospital on 24th August, 1998 at 7:30 am by Randhir Singh(A1)

and Baldev Singh(A2) with 80% burns. Apparently thus, it was the

two accused who took the victim to the hospital in an attempt to

get her treated for her burn injuries which is a strong circumstance

pointing to their innocence.

28. Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu(PW-3), Head Quarter Government

Medical College, Patiala who conducted post mortem upon the

dead body of the deceased, stated in her cross-examination that

there were no burn marks on the head and shoulders of the

deceased, however, her hair were singed. He admitted that if the

victim was sitting and the assailants had poured kerosene oil on

her body, then normally it would flow down from the head and

shoulders downwards.

29. Guddi(PW-4), being the elder sister of the deceased stated

that the accused had been making allegations on the character of

the deceased. She also alleged that Randhir Singh(A1) was having

illicit relations with his sister-in-law Karamjit Kaur(A4), wife of

Baldev Singh(A2) and that the deceased had been admonishing

Randhir Singh(A1) on that count upon which she was beaten by

the accused Randhir Singh(A1). Guddi(PW-4) tried to become a

direct witness claiming that on the date of incident she, along with

23 her husband Faqir Singh had gone to the village Panj Grain Kalan

to see her sister(victim). They reached the matrimonial house of

her sister at about 7:00 am and found that she was badly burnt

and was crying. At that time, no family member of the victim was

present at the spot. The witness(PW-4) also claimed that the victim

made an oral dying declaration stating that at 5.00 am, while she

was preparing tea, all the five accused persons were planning to

murder her. At that time, Baldev Singh(A2) extorted that kerosene

oil should be poured on her. Randhir Singh(A1) caught hold of her

hair and poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter, Karamjit Kaur

@ Pappi(A4) prompted that she should be burnt whereafter Surjit

Kaur @ Seeto(A3) had put Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(victim) on ablaze

with a matchstick. The victim, thereafter, came out and raised an

alarm on which the neighbours came and extinguished the fire.

She stated in her cross-examination that immediately upon seeing

the condition of her sister, she and her husband proceeded to the

village Ajit Gill for informing her brothers. It took them around

one and half to two hours to reach the village Ajit Gill. She and her

brother returned back to the village Panj Grain Kalan, but they did

not find Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(victim) present at the spot. Then, they

went to GGSMC Hospital, Faridkot and found that Smt. Kuldeep

24 Kaur(victim) was in the hospital and was writhing in pain. She

admitted that her brother Thana Singh(PW-5) was working in the

police department. She further stated that her sister was

conscious in the hospital and was narrating about the incident to

all persons including her brothers. She feigned ignorance

regarding the visit by police to the hospital. She admitted that she

and her brothers remained present with the victim till her death

and that the police came to the hospital only after her sister had

expired.

30. Apparently, the above version of Guddi(PW-4) is full of

falsities and embellishments. Guddi(PW-4) claimed that she and

her husband had visited the matrimonial home of the victim while

she was still lying there in a burnt condition. On the contrary, the

statement of Dr. M.S. Sandhu, Medical Officer(PW-1) would clearly

establish that the victim had already been brought to the Civil

Hospital, Kotakpura by accused Randhir Singh(A1) and Baldev

Singh(A2) at 7:30 am. We feel that if at all Guddi(PW-4) and her

husband had seen the victim lying abandoned at her matrimonial

home in a burnt condition, the first reaction and natural conduct

of these persons would have been to provide medical aid to the

victim by taking her to the hospital. However, Guddi(PW-4) and her

25 husband neither made any effort to take the victim to a hospital

nor did they call upon anyone to provide any first aid to the victim.

They also didn’t inform the police about the incident. Instead, both

chose to travel to the village Ajit Gill to inform the brothers about

the said incident which almost consumed three hours of valuable

time. Apparently thus, the evidence of Guddi(PW-4) to the extent,

she claimed to have seen the victim in a burnt condition at her

matrimonial home is false and cooked up.

31. Thana Singh(PW-5) being the brother of the Smt. Kuldeep

Kaur(victim) stated that after the marriage of his sister to Randhir

Singh(A1), all the accused persons started misbehaving with her

casting aspersions on her character. She tolerated the said ill

behaviour for some time but later, made complaints to them.

Thereupon, a panchayat meeting was convened wherein, the

accused agreed that they would not quarrel with the victim, but

soon thereafter, they re-indulged in the harassment and

misbehaviour towards the victim. He came to know from his sister,

Guddi(PW-4) that Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(deceased) had been set on

fire by the accused. On receiving this information, he along with

other relatives went to the GGSMC Hospital where his sister, Smt.

Kuldeep Kaur was lying on the bed in a burnt condition. This

26 version of Thana Singh is in total contrast to the evidence of

Guddi(PW-4). PW-5 also stated that Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(deceased)

made an oral dying declaration in presence of all the relatives. PW-

5 also made an amelioration that his sister(deceased) also told him

that Babu Singh(A5) was standing nearby her with dang in his

hand during the alleged incident of crime.

32. In cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that Baldev Singh(A2)

had been residing separately from his father and brother for the

last 6 to 7 years and was having separate residence and kitchen.

Karamjit Kaur(A4), wife of accused Baldev Singh(A2) is resident of

village Kaleke. He, however, denied the suggestion that Baldev

Singh(A2) and Karamjit Kaur(A4) were residing at village Kaleke

with Balwinder Kaur(mother of Karamjit Kaur). PW-5 feigned

ignorance to the question as to whether his sister was got admitted

in the GGSMC Hospital for treatment by her husband Randhir

Singh(A1).

33. Mohinder Singh(PW-6), resident of Village, Ajit Gill stated

that a panchayat was convened in connection with the

maltreatment meted out to Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(victim) by her

husband, Randhir Singh(A1), father-in-law, Babu Singh(A5) and

mother-in-law, Surjit Singh @ Seeto(A3). In the Panchayat, an

27 issue was raised about Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(victim) being denied

permission to live in the matrimonial home by her in-laws. The

panchayat convinced Randhir Singh(A1), his father Babu

Singh(A5) and mother Seeto(A3) to take back Smt. Kuldeep

Kaur(victim) with them to the matrimonial home. The witness(PW-

6) also claimed that he too went to the GGSMC Hospital, Faridkot

where Smt. Kuldeep Kaur(victim) was admitted in a burnt

condition. He also deposed regarding the so-called oral dying

declaration made by the victim. He, however, denied that the

police had recorded her statement.

34. A very consequential fact can be culled out from the evidence

of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 that none of them stated about any dying

declaration of the deceased having been recorded by either Surjit

Singh, ASI(PW-11) or Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7)

acting as Executive Magistrate after taking the fitness certificate

from the duty doctor. These grave contradictions, creates a doubt

on the very presence of these witnesses at the GGSMC Hospital

until the time, the two dying declarations were recorded. However,

we shall delve into this aspect of the case in the later part of the

discussion.

28

35. Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as

Executive Magistrate recorded the statement(Exhibit-PJ) which

has already been reproduced supra.

36. Dr. Manjit Singh, SMO(PW-9) testified regarding the issuance

of the fitness certificates verifying the condition of the victim to

make a statement. He also made an endorsement on the

statement(Exhibit-PJ) recorded by Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib

Tehsildar(PW-7). However, no such endorsement was made on the

dying declaration(Exhibit-PM) recorded by Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-

11).

37. Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) claimed to have recorded the dying

declaration of the victim(Exhibit-PM) after taking a fitness

certificate from the duty doctor. However, this dying declaration

does not bear any certification/endorsement of the doctor. PW-11

stated in his cross-examination that the certificate of fitness was

issued by the doctor at 12:50 pm. Thereafter, he proceeded to the

office of SDM, Faridkot at 1:35 pm. However, he did not tell

Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) that he had already

recorded the statement of the victim. PW-11 stated that he came

back to the hospital with Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-

7) at 1:55 pm whereafter Naib Tehsildar recorded the statement of

29 the victim. A pertinent suggestion was given to the witness(PW-

11) by the defence that there were certain infirmities in the

statement(Exhibit-PJ) recorded by Ramesh Kumar Jain, Naib

Tehsildar(PW-7) acting as Executive Magistrate and that is why, he

later concocted and fabricated the dying declaration(Exhibit-PM)

of the victim and antetimed the same.

38. Ran Singh(DW-1) stated that Navjot Kaur, daughter of

accused Baldev Singh(A2) was a student of Government Primary

School, Kaleke, District Moga from 1st to 4th standard and she

continued to study there. Similar statements were given by

Manminder Kaur(DW-2) and Balwinder Singh(DW-3) about the

daughters(Navjot Kaur and Prabhjot Kaur) of Baldev Singh(A2). All

these witnesses proved factum of education of the daughters of

Baldev Singh(A2) at the Government Primary School, Kaleke based

on the Government record.

39. From an overall appreciation of the evidence available on

record, the following indisputable conclusions can be culled out: -

(i) That there is no allegation whatsoever of the prosecution

witnesses that the deceased was harassed or humiliated in

the matrimonial home on account of any demand of dowry,

etc. 30

(ii) The prosecution witnesses have given divergent

statements regarding the cause of harassment meted out

to the deceased. Guddi(PW-4) and Thana Singh(PW-5)

alleged that the deceased was being harassed because

Randhir Singh(A1) was carrying an illicit affair with his

sister-in-law Karamjit Kaur(A4). To the contrary, Mohinder

Singh(PW-6) stated that a panchayat was convened for the

reason that the deceased was being denied entry into her

matrimonial home by the in-laws. Thus, clearly before the

panchayat, no such grievance was raised that the

harassment of the deceased was on the account of the

illicit affair of her husband(A1) and sister-in-law(A4). If at

all, the cause of this strife was the so-called illicit relation

between the accused Randhir Singh(A1) and Smt. Karamjit

Kaur(A4), there could not have been any possibility that

the accused Baldev Singh(A2) would have supported

Randhir Singh(A1) because that would directly

tantamount to his approving illicit relations between his

wife and his brother. Thus, the prosecution story is totally

unnatural and unbelievable.

31

(iii) Guddi(PW-4), Thana Singh(PW-5) and Mohinder

Singh(PW-6) claimed to be present besides the victim from

about 11:00 am till the time of her death which occurred

on 27th August, 1998. However, they did not utter a word

that any dying declaration of the victim was recorded

either by Surjit Singh, ASI(PW-11) or by Ramesh Kumar

Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7). They also intentionally

concealed the fact that the victim was brought to the

hospital by Randhir Singh(A1) and Baldev Singh(A2). All

these witnesses are close family members of the deceased

and thus, their evidence must be viewed with a greater

degree of circumspection. They apparently gave a false

narrative on material aspects of the case. Their evidence is

definitely of dubitable character apart from being partisan

in nature.

(iv) That none of the doctors examined by the prosecution

stated that they sensed the smell of kerosene from the

body of the victim after she had been admitted in the

hospital. This fact assumes significance when we consider

the admission as appearing in the evidence of Dr. Sarabjit

Singh Sandhu(PW-3) who stated that no burn injuries

32 were noticed on the head and shoulders of the deceased.

Thus, there are well-founded reasons for this Court to hold

that the allegation of the prosecution that kerosene oil was

poured on the body of the victim and then she was set on

fire is neither established nor corroborated by any

independent or reliable piece of evidence.

40. In view of the admission as appearing in the evidence of

Thana Singh(PW-5) read with the evidence of Ran Singh(DW-1),

Manminder Kaur(DW-2) and Balwinder Singh(DW-3), it is clear

that Baldev Singh(A2) and Karamjit Kaur(A4) were residing at the

village Kaleke where their daughters were also studying.

Therefore, the presence of Baldev Singh(A2) and Karamjit Kaur(A4)

in the house at the village Panj Grain Kalan where the incident

took place is absolutely unbelievable, more so when the incident

took place at around 4:00 to 5:00 am. The prosecution has not

come out with any concrete motive which could have incited the

accused to put the victim on fire.

41. The deceased while making the statement(Exhibit-PJ) stated

that she was trying to prepare tea when people of her house set

her on fire. She also stated that after she had caught fire, she

raised an alarm whereafter people of her house and neighbours

33 extinguished the fire. Her husband brought her to the hospital and

got her admitted.

42. The above dying declaration is also corroborated on some

aspects by the statement of Kewal Singh(DW-5) who deposed on

oath that he heard the cries coming from the house of the deceased

and upon reaching there, he saw Randhir Singh(A1) extinguishing

the fire of his wife. The witness(DW-5) also mentioned that the

victim spoke out that she had caught fire suddenly and nobody

had set her ablaze. Thus, the probability of the victim having

caught accidental fire while preparing tea is higher rather than the

theory set up by prosecution witnesses that it is a case of

intentional immolation.

43. The dying declaration(Exhibit-PM) recorded by Surjit Singh,

ASI(PW-11) is apparently a post-investigation document and

seems to have been prepared under the influence of Thana

Singh(PW-5), brother of the deceased who was also employed in

the police department.

44. There is no corroborative evidence to persuade the Court to

hold that any such dying declaration was actually recorded. As

per the dying declaration(Exhibit-PJ) recorded by the Ramesh

Kumar Jain, Naib Tehsildar(PW-7) apparently the victim did not 34 take the name of any particular accused holding him/her

responsible for the incident.

45. In this background, the conviction of the accused was rightly

interfered by the High Court while accepting the appeals against

conviction. The impugned order dated 17th July, 2014 rendered

by the Division Bench of the High Court is based on an apropos

appreciation of evidence available on record and hence, does not

warrant any interference in these appeals against acquittal

preferred by the State of Punjab.

46. Consequently, the appeals fail and are dismissed.

47. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………….……….J. (ARAVIND KUMAR)

………………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) New Delhi;

July 09, 2024

35