Sukhjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

Page 4 5

the accused as relating to abduction as stipulated under

Section 364 IPC and such an omission fundamentally affects

the concept of trial; (iii) that in the obtaining factual matrix

the learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has fallen

into grave error by not taking note of the fact that PW-6, the

mother of the Kuljit Kaur had categorically admitted that her

daughter was in custody and further the accused had

brought on record the documents from jail to prove that she

was arrayed as an accused under Section 302 IPC; and (iv)

that in the obtaining factual score the prosecution has failed

to establish the charges leveled against the accused-

appellant and, therefore, the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence are liable to be annulled.

8. Mr. V. Madukar, learned Additional Advocate General

for the State of Punjab has supported the decision of the trail

Judge that has been concurred with by the High Court

contending, inter alia, that the appellant had failed to explain

about the missing of his wife and there is an evidence on

record that she was last seen with him.

9. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, we

have, apart from perusing the judgment of the trial Court as

Page 5 6

well as that of the High Court, also critically scrutinized the

evidence on record. On a scanning of the evidence of the

mother, Swaran Kaur, it is demonstrable that she had

admitted in no uncertain terms that Kujit Kaur had remained

in Central Jail Amritsar and she was not aware of the year

when she remained in jail. The factum for her being in jail

also gets support from the documents exhibits DA and DB.

That apart, it is interesting to note that none of the

witnesses have stated anything about the abduction. All the

witnesses have deposed about the factum of marriage as if

that was the singular fact needed to be established to bring

home the charge. In addition, we find that the learned trial

Judge had also put all the questions to the accused-appellant

pertaining to the marriage and visit of residence and office of

the appellant by the mother.

10. On a studied scrutiny of the questions put under

Section 313 CrPC in entirety, we find that no incriminating

material has been brought to the notice of the accused while

putting questions. Mr. Talwar, has submitted that the

requirement as engrafted under Section 313 CrPC is not an

empty formality. To buttress the aforesaid submission, he

Page 6 7

has drawn inspiration from the authority in Ranvir Yadav v.

State of Bihar1. Relying upon the same, he would contend

that when the incriminating materials have not been put to

the accused under Section 313 CrPC it tantamounts serous

lapse on the part of the trial Court making the conviction

vitiated in law.

11. In this context, we may profitably refer to a four-Judge

Bench decision in Tara Singh v. The State2 wherein, Bose,

J. explaining the significance of the faithful and fair

compliance of Section 342 of the Code as it stood then,

opined thus:

“30. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not a proper compliance to read out a long string of questions and answers made in the committal court and ask whether the statement is correct. A question of that kind is misleading. It may mean either that the questioner wants to know whether the recording is correct, or whether the answers given are true, or whether there is some mistake or misunderstanding despite the accurate recording. In the next place, it is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to

1 (2009) 6 SCC 595 2 AIR 1951 SC 441

Page 7 8

be used against him. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him. The questioning must therefore be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused person is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. He is therefore in no fit position to understand the significance of a complex question.

Fairness therefore requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand. I do not suggest that every error or omission in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial because I am of opinion that errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the question in each case depends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to have been occasioned. In my opinion, the disregard of the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is so gross in this case that I feel there is grave likelihood of prejudice.”

12. In Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhaya

Bharat3, Bose, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench

highlighting the importance of recording of the statement of

the accused under the code expressed thus:-

“8. Now the statements of an accused person recorded under Sections 208, 209 and 342, Criminal P.C. are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial. It has to be remembered that in this country an accused, person is not allowed to enter the box and speak 3 AIR 1953 SC 468

Page 8 9

on oath in his own defence. This may operate for the protection of the accused is some cases but experience elsewhere has shown that it can also be a powerful and impressive weapon of defence in the hands of an innocent man. The statements of the accused recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness-box.”

13. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Ajay

Singh v. State of Mahrashtra4 in following terms:

“14. The word “generally” in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused’s failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give.” 4 (2007) 12 SCC 341

Page 9 1

14. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, there can

be no scintilla of doubt that the when the requisite questions

have not been put to the accused it has caused immense

prejudice to him, more so, when there is no evidence to

establish his complicity in the alleged abduction.

15. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of

conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court

and affirmed by the High Court are set aside. As the

accused is in custody, he shall be released forthwith unless

his detention is required in connection with any other case.

.............................J. [Dipak Misra]

.............................J. [A.K. Sikri] New Delhi;

September 11, 2014.

Page 10