Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2013

Sukhjit Singh … Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab     …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeal, by special  leave, is preferred by  

the appellant assailing the judgment and order passed by  

the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  

Criminal  Appeal  No.  978-SB of  2003  whereby  the  learned  

Single  Judge  has  affirmed  the  conviction  recorded  by  the  

learned trial Judge under Section 364 IPC and maintained the  

sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of  

Rs.5000/-, with the default clause.     

2. Filtering the unnecessary details the prosecution case  

as unfurled is that Swaran Kaur, lodged an FIR No. 173 at

Page 2

P.S. Kotwali, District Kapurthatla on 15.10.1998  alleging that  

the  marriage  between  her  daughter,  Kuljit  Kaur,  was  

solemnized with the accused-appellant as per religious rites  

on 7.1.1991 and in  the wedlock a  son,  namely,  Manpreet  

Singh,  was  born.   There  was  incompatibility  between  the  

husband and wife as a consequence of which the accused  

was  ill  treating  Kuljit  Kaur.   Initially  both  of  them  were  

staying in a rented house at Kapurthala but in March 1998  

they shifted to another rented house situate in Mohalla Preet  

Nagar,  Near  Jhanda  Mal  School,  Kapurthala,  and  started  

residing there.  The informant used to go to her daughter’s  

house and sometime in May 1998 when she went to meet  

her  daughter  she  was  informed  by  the  landlord  that  the  

tenants had vacated the house on 27/28.04.1998  and had  

left for Ludhiana.  The further case of the prosecution is that  

when the accused had taken Kuljit Kaur with the intention to  

put an end to her life spark.   

3. After the criminal law was set in motion the concerned  

investigating officer recorded the statement of witnesses.  It  

is apt to note here that on the basis of an order passed in a  

writ  petition  the  investigation  was  entrusted  to  the  crime  

2

Page 3

branch, Punjab Police and the said investigating agency on  

completion  of  the  investigation  placed  the  chargesheet  

before the learned Chief Judicial Magisrtrate, Kapurthala for  

the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC and the said  

court in turn committed the case to the court of Session vide  

order dated 25.08.2000.

4. The  prosecution  to  substantiate  it  case  examined  

Sadhu  Singh,  PW1,  Harjit  Sing,  PW2,  Gurmit  Singh,  PW3,  

Sadhu Singh son of Baai  Singh,  PW 4,  Grandthi,  PW5,  the  

Inspector, Swaran Kaur, the informant, and Sukhdev Singh,  

PW7, ASI of Police.  After  the evidence of the prosecution  

was closed statement of the accused was recorded whose  

plea in defence was that Kuljit Kaur was wife married to one  

Labh Singh and she was involved in a case under Section  

302 IPC and was in custody.  To substantiate the plea, the  

defence  examined  four  witnesses  and  brought  Exhibit  DA  

and DB on record.  

5.  The learned trial Judge accepted the testimony of the  

mother and the other witnesses and further placing reliance  

on the video recording of the marriage came to hold that the  

appellant and the Kuljit Kaur were husband and wife, hence  

3

Page 4

the plea that Labh Singh was the husband of Kuljit Kuar was  

not  acceptable;  and  that  Kuljit  Kaur  and  the  accused-

appellant  were  last  seen  together  and,  therefore,  it  was  

obligatory on the part of the accused to explain about her  

disappearance.   On  the  aforesaid  base,  the  learned  trial  

Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable  

under Section 364 IPC and sentenced him as has been stated  

hereinabove.  

6. On  an appeal being preferred, the High Court declined  

to  interfere  with  the  judgment  of  conviction  and  order  of  

sentence and followed the same reasoning which has been  

ascribed by the learned trial Judge.

7. Mr.  R.K.  Talwar,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant has raised four contentions, namely, (i) there is no  

evidence on record even remotely to show that the appellant  

had abducted Kuljit Kaur, for the entire evidence brought on  

record by the prosecution  are centered around the fact of  

proving  the  existence  of   marital  status  between  the  

appellant and the Kuljit Kaur; (ii) that the learned trial Judge  

has not complied with the basic requirements of Section 313  

CrPC inasmuch as not even a singular question was put to  

4

Page 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  

5

Page 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  

6

Page 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

7

Page 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

8

Page 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

9

Page 10

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.

1