REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 1063 OF 2003        

STATE OF PUNJAB ...   Appellant(s)                         Versus    GURDIP KAUR ...  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Challenge is  this  appeal is  to  the judgment of  a Division Bench of  the

Punjab and Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal of the

respondent.   Two appeals were filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No.

169-DB of 1995 and Criminal Appeal No. 328-DB of 1995.  Both the appeals were

directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda holding that  each

of the accused persons were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').  The two appellants in the

two Criminal Appeals before the High Court faced trial along with  one Bant Singh

who was acquitted by the trial court.  

Detailed reference to  the  factual position is not necessary in view of the

conclusions of the High Court in the two appeals.  Firstly it  was  recorded that there

was

-2-

considerable delay in lodging the first  information report and secondly there was

considerable unexplained delay in sending the report to the Elaka Magistrate.  It was

concluded by the High Court that these factors apart from the fact that the evidence

of the so called eye-witness was not credible and cogent,  the medical evidence was

clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered prosecution version unsustainable.

Learned counsel for the appellant -State submitted that the factors which

have weighed  with the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be maintained.  Learned

counsel for the respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment.

Though it cannot be said as a rule of universal application that whenever

there is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in despatching the report to the

Elaka Magistrate and/or the medical evidence is  at some variance with the ocular

evidence the prosecution has to fail, in the instant case the combined effect of the

above factors leave no manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the

accusations.  The view taken by the High Court is a possible view and we do not

consider this appeal to be a fit case where any interference is called for.

-3-

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

             ....................J.                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)   

             ....................J.                          (C.K.THAKKER)              

  ....................J.                              (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

New Delhi, October 21, 2008.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 1064 OF 2003        

STATE OF PUNJAB ...   Appellant(s)                         Versus    AVTAR SINGH ...  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

Challenge is this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab

and Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana directing acquittal of the respondent.

Two appeals were filed before the High Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 169-DB of 1995

and Criminal Appeal No. 328-DB of 1995.  Both the appeals were directed against the

judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda holding that  each of the accused persons

were guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC').   The two appellants in the two connected appeals

faced trial along with  one Bant Singh who was acquitted by the trial Court.  Detailed

reference to the factual position is not necessary in view of the conclusions of the High

Court in the two appeals.   

-2-

Firstly it was submitted that there was considerable delay in lodging the  first

information  report  and secondly

there was considerable unexplained delay in sending the report

to the Elaka Magistrate.  It was concluded by the High Court that these factors apart

from the fact that the evidence of the so called eye-witness was not credible and cogent

and also the medical evidence was clearly at variance with the ocular version rendered

prosecution version vulnerable.  

Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the factors which have

weighed  with the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be maintained.  Learned counsel

for the respondent accused on the other hand supported the judgment.

Though it cannot be laid as a rule of universal application that whenever there

is delay in lodging the FIR and/or there is delay in despatching the report to the Elaka

Magistrate and/or the medical evidence is at some variance with the ocular evidence.  The

prosecution has to fail in the instant case the combined effect of the three factors leave no

manner of doubt that prosecution has failed to establish the accusations.  The view taken

by the High Court is a possible view and we do not consider this to be a fit case where

any interference is called for.

-3-

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

             ....................J.                                  (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)   

             ....................J.                          (C.K.THAKKER)              

  ....................J.                              (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA)

New Delhi, October 21, 2008.