The State Of Punjab vs Gurpreet Singh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal Nos.664­665 / 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.1852­1853/ 2024) (Arising out of Diary No. 15720/2020)

State of Punjab ….Appellant(s) versus Gurpreet Singh & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

JUDGEMENT

SURYA KANT, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2019, passed

by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (hereinafter, ‘High

Court’), allowing Criminal Appeal, CRA­D­1606­DB­2015 (O&M) filed by Gurpreet

Singh, Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep Singh (Respondent Nos. 1­3) and Criminal

Revision, CRR­2942­2015 (O&M) 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’).

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by satish kumar yadav Date: 2024.03.01

FACTS:

12:36:33 IST Reason:

1 4. At this juncture, it is imperative to delve into the factual matrix to set out

the context of the present proceedings.

5. FIR No. 100 dated 18.07.2012, was registered at Police Station City

Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural, under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC and Sections

25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The subject FIR was lodged on the

statement of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2), the Complainant, who stated that his elder

daughter, Kirandeep Kaur, was married to Gurpreet Singh (main accused) in the

year 2009 and they got divorced in the year 2011. On 18.07.2012, at about 1.30

p.m., the Complainant was taking rest in his bedroom while his wife, Amarjit

Kaur, and their son and younger daughter were on the first floor. At the exact time

of the incident, the Complainant received information from Amarjit Kaur, who was

standing on the stairs, that someone was calling for him. The Complainant opened

the drawing­room door to check the main gate, wherein he saw Gurpreet Singh,

accompanied by an unidentified individual, who had entered the porch by jumping

the compound wall. Gurpreet Singh was armed with a pistol, while the

unidentified person held a hockey stick. No sooner did the Complainant open the

drawing­room door Gurpreet Singh shot at the Complainant’s wife, Amarjit Kaur,

under the right ear from a close range. When the Complainant accessed the main

gate, he saw brothers of Gurpreet Singh, namely, Harpreet Singh and Joga Singh

(sons of Puran Singh r/o Bhodipura), standing there besides an Innova car. The

Complainant shouted at them and tried to catch hold of the assailants, but they

crossed the main gate and fled in the Innova car. The reason for enmity, according

to the Complainant, was that the daughter of the Complainant, Kirandeep Kaur,

had cleared the IELTS exam and had shifted to Australia. Gurpreet Singh also

wanted to settle in Australia, but due to their divorce, his dreams were shattered,

2 and he blamed Amarjit Kaur, the wife of the Complainant to be responsible for the

divorce.

6. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring the guilt home,

including Gursewak Singh, P.W.2 (the Complainant) and his daughter,

Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3), both eyewitnesses. The entire case of the prosecution

is based upon the version of these two eyewitnesses, who claimed that the murder

took place in the broad daylight in front of them.

7. The Trial Court, having found the version of the two eyewitnesses to be

trustworthy, which was duly corroborated by the medical evidence and the

recovery of the weapon, held Gurpreet Singh guilty of the offence under Section

302 IPC, whereas his co­accused were held guilty for the offence under Section

302/34 IPC. All of them were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

8. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment, disbelieved the version of

Gursewak Singh (P.W.2, the Complainant) and his daughter, Harmandeep Kaur

(P.W.3), primarily for the reasons that (i) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) had gone for the

medical checkup of his son to a hospital in Jagraon. It was not possible for him to

reach back Doraha at the time of occurrence, as the distance was of about 70

kms. (ii) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) failed to disclose the names of the co­accused,

Harpreet Singh and Kashmira Singh, in his first version, and he is stated to have

re­collected their names after about five hours. (iii) It is doubtful that Harmandeep

Kaur (P.W.3) would be attending her classes from her parental house rather than

from her in­laws' house since she got married only a few months ago. (iv) No Test

Identification Parade was conducted. (v) There is a great mystery about the

nomination of Jagdeep Singh, Harpreet Singh S/o Veer Singh and Kashmira Singh

because, as per the testimony of the eyewitnesses, they were never named before

3 the police, and even the Investigating Officer has also not disclosed as to how

these persons have been nominated as accused. (vi) These discrepancies,

inconsistencies and unexplained circumstances go to the root of the case and

severely dent the credibility of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) and his daughter.

9. The High Court, thus, viewed that once the defence is able to cast a

reasonable doubt on the story of the prosecution, the necessary consequence will

be the acquittal of the accused.

10. Discontented with the acquittal of the accused persons, the State of Punjab

is in appeal before us.

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

11. 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 well­reasoned findings by the Trial Court, which categorically stated that

based on the direct and unequivocal statements provided by both the witnesses

(P.W.2 and P.W.3), 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,

4 which was substantiated by a proper identification in the court.

12. 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.

ANALYSIS

13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length,

we find that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal; (i)

whether a case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 136; (ii)

whether the acquittal of Respondents is sustainable, if the answer of the first

question is in the affirmative.

SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE

14. Learned counsel for the Respondents very passionately contends that the

case does not fall within such exceptional category where this Court, while

exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution, should interfere in a

well­reasoned order of acquittal passed by the High Court.

15. There is no gainsaying that once the appellate court acquits the accused,

the presumption of innocence as it existed before conviction by the Trial Court,

stands restored, and this Court, while scrutinizing the evidence, will proceed with

5 great circumspect and will not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal, save

when the impeccable prosecution evidence nails the accused beyond any doubt.

In other words, where on consideration of the material on record, even if two views

are possible, yet this Court, while exercising powers under Article 136 of the

Constitution, will not tinker with an order of acquittal.

16. State of Karnataka v. J. Jayalalitha1 does acknowledge that a judgment

of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.

Nevertheless, the caveat is that the court must not shy away from its

responsibility to prevent a miscarriage of justice and must intervene when

necessary. If the acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds, if the High Court allows

itself to be misled by distractions, if the High Court dismisses the evidence

accepted by the Trial Court without proper consideration, or if the High Court's

flawed approach leads to the neglect of vital evidence, this Court is obligated to

intervene to uphold the interests of justice and address any concerns within the

judicial conscience.

17. In Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar 2, this Court has outlined the principles

guiding its intervention in acquittal orders under Article 136. These are:

(i) An intervention is warranted when the High Court's approach or reasoning

is deemed perverse. This occurs when the High Court, based on suspicion

and surmises, rejects evidence or when the acquittal is primarily rooted in

an exaggerated adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of doubt in favour

of the accused.

(ii) Another circumstance for intervention arises when the acquittal would lead

to a significant miscarriage of justice. This refers to situations where the

1 (2017) 6 SCC 263.

2 (2022) 3 SCC 471.

6 High Court, through a cursory examination of evidence, severs the

connection between the accused and the crime.

18. An erroneous or perverse approach to the proven facts of a case and/or

ignorance of some of the vital circumstances would amount to a grave and

substantial miscarriage of justice. In such a case, this Court will be justified in

exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to undo the injustice mete out to the

victims of a crime.

19. Keeping these principles in mind, we proceed to analyse the legal evidence

on record and how the High Court appears to have fallen in an error, at least

partially, if not in entirety.

ACQUITTAL ORDER QUA GURPREET SINGH (MAIN ACCUSED)

20. With a view to establish charges against Gurpreet Singh, the prosecution

relied on the testimonies of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2), Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3)

and Hari Mittar (P.W.9). A brief summarization of their testimonies is necessitated

hereunder.

21. P.W.2, Gursewak Singh, the deceased's husband, is the Complainant in FIR

No. 100/2012. He provided a detailed account of the incident to the police,

recounting that his wife, who was standing on the stairs, informed him of

someone calling from outside the main gate. Upon opening the door of the drawing

room, he witnessed Gurpreet Singh armed with a pistol. Gurpreet Singh and the

unidentified person (Jagdeep Singh, named later on during the testimony) had

entered the house by scaling the wall of the house. While P.W.2 was standing at

the drawing­room door, Gurpreet Singh aimed the pistol at Amarjit Kaur, shot her

under the right ear causing her to fall. P.W.2 raised the alarm, and upon reaching

7 the main gate, he saw Gurpreet Singh, along with Harpreet Singh, Kashmira

Singh, and Jagdeep Singh, making their escape in an Innova car. P.W.2 asserted

that the motive behind the murder was related to his elder daughter, Kirandeep

Kaur, who was earlier married to Gurpreet Singh and had relocated to Australia.

Due to the divorce from Kirandeep, Gurpreet Singh's plans to settle in Australia

were thwarted, and he held the deceased Amarjit Kaur responsible for the divorce.

22. P.W.3, Harmandeep Kaur, the younger daughter of the deceased, recounted

that she, along with her brother and mother, was on the terrace of the house.

Amarjit Kaur, hence deceased, while descending the stairs, informed Gursewak

Singh P.W.2 of the call. P.W.2 opened the drawing room door to check the main

gate. In the meantime, Gurpreet Singh, armed with a pistol, and Jagdeep Singh,

wielding a hockey stick, entered the premises by scaling the boundary wall.

Gurpreet Singh aimed the pistol at Amarjit Kaur, who was standing on the stairs,

firing a shot that struck below her right ear. Subsequently, Gurpreet Singh and

Jagdeep Singh fled in an Innova car. P.W.3 also detailed the motive, indicating

that Gurpreet Singh believed Amarjit Kaur was responsible for the divorce from

Kirandeep Kaur, sabotaging his plan to settle in Australia.

23. P.W.9, Hari Mittar, the Investigating Officer of the case, reported that upon

reaching the scene of the incident, he documented the statement of P.W.2 and

compiled an inquest report concerning the deceased, Amarjit Kaur. Additionally,

he mentioned that after the arrest, Gurpreet Singh was interrogated where he

made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW9/F) revealing the concealment of a 12­bore

country­made pistol along with two live cartridges in bushes opposite Gurudwara

Bhaura Sahib. Acting on this disclosure statement, the police successfully

recovered a 12­bore country­made pistol, one empty cartridge, and two live

8 cartridges of the same calibre.

24. The Trial Court, deeming P.W.2 and P.W.3 as natural witnesses, based its

findings on their testimonies to establish the involvement of Gurpreet Singh in the

murder of Amarjit Kaur. Furthermore, the Trial Court noted that there was no

apparent motive for P.W.2 and P.W.3 to protect the real culprits and falsely accuse

innocent individuals in connection with the crime. The pertinent paragraph is

outlined below:

“51. Thus, the presence of both the complainant and Harmandeep Kaur at the place of occurrence comes across as natural presence. From the direct and unequivocal testimonies of both theses witnesses the fact that accused Gurpreet Singh shot at Amarjit Kaur is duly established. The complainant and the eye witness lost their family member in the incident. There would be no reason for the complainant and Harmandeep Kaur to shield the actual culprits and to name the innocent as the perpetrators of the crime.”

25. The High Court, however, in the impugned judgment, stated that the

defence has been able to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's story.

Consequently, High Court has disbelieved the testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3.

26. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons assigned by the

High Court, and we find it extremely difficult to concur with the same. We say so

for the reason that the presence of Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) in his own house

cannot indeed be doubted for the simple reason that the occurrence took place at

1.30 p.m. and he made a call to the Police Control Room at 1.40 p.m. The fact that

in the very first version, Gursewak Singh disclosed the name of the Gurpreet

Singh, as being the killer of his wife, leaves no room to doubt that he was

physically present in the house and witnessed the occurrence.

27. Similarly, the reason assigned by the High Court to discard the version of

Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) (daughter of the deceased) is wholly untenable. We

9 cannot at all countenance that a daughter, after her marriage, would permanently

stay at her in­laws' house and would not visit her parents after her marriage.

Such a sweeping conclusion is neither traceable to Punjab’s social culture nor it

appeals to our common sense. It is on record that Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) was

a student before and after her marriage. It is natural that even after her marriage,

Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) wanted to continue her studies, and therefore was

staying with her parents. We see no unnatural or unexpected circumstances in

she being present in her paternal home on the fateful day.

28. There is no suggestion to Gursewak Singh, P.W.2 (Complainant), and his

daughter Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) that they had some other reason to implicate

Gurpreet Singh falsely, who happens to be the former husband of the daughter of

P.W.2. There was no criminal or civil case filed by the Kirandeep Kaur (ex­wife of

Gurpreet Singh), Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) or his family members against Gurpreet

Singh. On the contrary, the prosecution has successfully established that

Gurpreet Singh had been nursing a grudge against the deceased, whom he held

responsible for the divorce from the elder daughter of the deceased. It has also

come on record that the elder daughter, Kirandeep Kaur, with whom Gurpreet

Singh was earlier married, had settled in Australia even before her marriage.

Gurpreet Singh was keen to migrate from India and settle down in Australia. His

plans could not materialise because of the divorce from his wife. In such

circumstances, the attribution of motive by the prosecution stands proved.

29. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that when the wife of Gursewak Singh

(P.W.2) or the mother of Harmandeep Kaur (P.W.3) is suddenly killed in their

presence, they would not like the real accused to go scot­free. In the absence of

any previous motive, it is not at all comprehensible that they would falsely

10 implicate Gurpreet Singh. It was not a case where the Complainant had enmity

with someone and he concocted a story to implicate Gurpreet Singh post the

occurence. This Court, in Thoti Manohar v. State Of Andhra Pradesh 3,

observed that in the incident, which transpired partly within the confines of the

house and extended slightly beyond the deceased's premises, the family members

and close relatives naturally become the witnesses. These individuals cannot be

considered incidental witnesses; instead, they emerge as the most natural

witnesses in the given factual context. Typically, a close relative is unlikely to

shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. While it is

acknowledged that emotions can run high and personal animosity may exist,

merely being related does not provide a valid basis for criticism; instead, familial

ties often serve as a reliable assurance of truth.

30. Most importantly, Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) narrated the entire occurrence

on a call made to the Police Control Room within ten minutes of the occurrence.

There could not be, in all probabilities, any meeting of the minds within a few

minutes after the occurence, so as to create a false narrative only to implicate

Gurpreet Singh. The unfiltered version of the Complainant, in our considered

opinion, conclusively establishes the veracity of his subsequent deposition. This

Court, in Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh4, has categorically held that the

prompt lodging of an FIR helps dispel suspicions related to the potential

exaggeration of the involvement of individuals and adds credibility to the

prosecution's argument. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first­hand account of

what happened and who was responsible for the offence in question. (See also:

Thulia Kali v. State Of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393, State of Punjab v. 3 (2012) SCC 7 723.

4 (2023) 10 SCC 470.

11 Surja Ram 1995 Supp (3) SCC 419, Girish Yadav v. State of M.P (1996) 8

SCC 186 and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC

158).

31. It is pertinent to refer to the endorsement of FIR No. 100, dated 18.07.2012,

where it is clearly mentioned that as soon as the information was received through

Police Control Room, a police party headed by Sub­Inspector Hari Mittar along

with ASI Baldev Singh and four Head Constables reached the house of Gursewak

Singh (Complainant) at Tower Colony, Jagraon where the dead body of Amarjit

Kaur was lying near the stairs. The Complainant's statement was recorded, and

an intimation to this effect was sent to the higher officers and the Control Room.

This entire exercise got completed by 3.15 p.m. A report to this effect had already

been sent to the Ilaka Magistrate, and the dead body was brought for postmortem

at about 6.35 p.m. The presence of Gursewak Singh at the time of occurrence, his

prompt reporting of the crime, and the swift action taken by the police

immediately upon receipt of the said report, have cumulatively and unequivocally

established the prosecution case beyond any doubt.

32. This is also a matter of record that the weapon of crime, namely, the pistol,

was recovered from Gurpreet Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement. There is

overwhelming evidence, including the statement of S.I. Hari Mittar (P.W.9) to

establish the recovery of country­made pistol at the instance of Gurpreet Singh.

The recovery of the weapon of crime, along with live cartridges and one empty

shell, has been elaborately explained by Hari Mittar (P.W.9) in his cross­

examination, which inspires confidence. The statement of P.W.9, Hari Mittar has

been duly corroborated by ASI Baldev Singh (P.W.8) besides Head Constable

Sukhdev Singh (P.W.6).

12

33. The contention that none of the neighbours came forward to witness the

occurrence is totally illogical and a misconceived notion. The prosecution case is

that the occurrence took place inside the house. When the police reached the spot

immediately after the occurrence, the dead body was found lying inside the house

near the stairs. It is, thus, natural that the residents in the adjoining houses did

not see the occurrence. The shot was fired at close range, and, the people in the

neighbourhood obviously did not come to know about the incident. No adverse

inference can be drawn against the prosecution on this count. The time of

occurrence, i.e., 1.30 p.m., also indicates that most of the people in the

neighbourhood were inside their houses and could not be expected outside in the

streets keeping in view the hot and humid weather of July as it prevails in the

State of Punjab. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the reasons

assigned by the High Court while granting acquittal to Gurpreet Singh are totally

perverse and as a result of misreading of the evidence on record. In this view of

the matter, sustaining the acquittal of Gurpreet Singh, would amount to a

travesty of justice and it, thus, warrants interference by this Court in the exercise

of its jurisdiction, which we invoke sparingly. Consequently, the order of acquittal

passed by the High Court qua Gurpreet Singh cannot be sustained and is set

aside.

ACQUITTAL ORDER QUA THE CO­ACCUSED

34. Adverting to the prosecution case against Kashmira Singh and Jagdeep

Singh (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) in the appeal arising out of CRA­D­1606­

DB­2015 (O&M) and Harpreet Singh, who was the appellant before the High Court

in CRR­2942­2015(O&M), we are satisfied that the reasons assigned by the High

13 Court in support of their acquittal are possible and plausible. We say so in light

of the fact that (i) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2 – Complainant) did not mention their

names when he called the Police Control Room at 1.40 p.m. immediately after the

occurrence. (ii) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2 – Complainant) merely stated that there

were some unknown persons accompanying Gurpreet Singh (iii) In fact, P.W.2 and

3 both did not know the above­named three persons – who were nominated as co­

accused of Gurpreet Singh. (iv) Gursewak Singh (P.W.2) is claimed to have

recollected their names after about five hours of the occurrence. It is difficult to

accept how he re­collected their names, more so when the prosecution did not

lead any further evidence as to how he knew them prior to the occurrence. (v) The

possibility of pointing out their names by someone else thus cannot be ruled out.

35. The Investigating Officer has also failed to disclose as to how he found these

respondents to be connected with the crime during the course of investigation.

There is no convincing explanation to implicate them as co­accused. There is also

not an iota of evidence to suggest that the Respondents (Kashmira Singh, Jagdeep

Singh and Harpreet Singh) had any meeting with Gurpreet Singh and/or they had

conspired with him for the execution of the crime. There is no specific motive

attributed to them. In such circumstances, the High Court seems right in

extending the benefit of doubt qua them.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

36. For the reasons aforestated, the Criminal Appeal No.664 of 2024 @

SLP(Crl.)No.1852/2024 is allowed in part; 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

14 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.

37. Criminal appeal No.665 of 2024 @ SLP(Crl.)No.1853 of 2024 against

acquittal of Harpreet Singh is dismissed.

38. The present appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

………..………………… J.

(SURYA KANT)

……………………………J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN) NEW DELHI DATED : 06.02.2024

15 16