Kaur Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Nehra, J.

Petitioner was convicted under Section 354 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months on February 6, 1986 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and the judgment passed by the Magistrate was set aside and the case was sent back to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot on August 5, 1986. Hence the criminal revision.

Facts of the case are that on October 6, 1983 Surjit Singh made the statement that they are six brothers. His elder brother Amarjit Singh is residing in a separate house which adjoins their house. On October 5, 1983, at about 11.45 p.m. his sisterinlaw Mohinder Kaur raised hue and cry that one person namely Kaur Singh had entered their house. Surjit Singh alongwith his brother Lacchman Singh went to the house of Amarjit Singh where Kaur Singh and his nephew Karam Singh were standing in the Court yard. Karam Singh had entered the house with bad intention Surjit Singh left Kaur Singh in the custody of Karam Singh, Lachhman Singh and Mohinder Kaur and went to the Police Station to lodge the report. On his statement the case was registered against the accused under Section 456 IPC.

P2 in support of the case prosecution examined PW1, Surjit Singh, PW2 Mohinder Kaur, PW3 Karam Singh and PW4 Gurbachan Singh. After the close of the prosecution evidence accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and stated that Amarjit Singh was his friend and he used to cultivate his land and ornaments of Amarjit Singh were laying with him in his custody. But his wife, brothers and son tried to create differences between the accused and Amarjit Singh but they could not succeed and than in the absence of Amarjit Singh in connivance with the police the false case has been planted upon him. Gulzar Singh DW1 appeared in his defence.

Mr. T.P.S. Mann, counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner was registered on October 6, 1983 and the trial Court decided the same against the petitioner on February 6, 1986. Since 1986 this revision petition is pending in this court, therefore, it is not a fit case in which retrial ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is allowed to be held. In support of his argument he has relied upon Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Om Parkash, 1969, PLR, 793 and Municipal Amritsar v. Labhu Ram and others, 1970 Criminal Law Journal, 553.

It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Municipal Committee Amritsar v. Om Parkash (supra).

"Ordinarily, our findings just above given would necessitate a retrial of the respondent; but the same in our opinion is not called for because of the circumstance that these proceedings have gone on for more than 3 1/2 years P3 during which period the respondent has suffered from suspense and it would not be conducive to justice if a retrial is ordered resulting in the proceedings starting afresh."

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Machander v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954, SC 79 has held :

"Justice is not one sided. It has many facts and we have to draw a nice balance between conflicting rights and duties. While it is incumbent on the court to see that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed. The must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned with the detection of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice, limits must be placed on the lengths to which they may go.

Except in clear cases of guilt, where the error is purely technical, the forces that they are arrayed against the accused should not more be permitted in special appeal to repair the effects of their bungling than an accused should be permitted to repair gaps in his defence which he could not ought to have made good in the lower courts. The scales of justice must be kept on an even balance whether for P4 the accused or against him whether, in favour of the State or not, and one broad rule must apply in all cases."

After hearing the counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that retrial of the petitioner after 9 years and 5 month of the date of the occurrence is uncalled for because the petitioner has suffered from suspense and it would not be conducive to justice if retrial as ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is allowed to continue, resulting in the proceedings to start afresh.

In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the judgment dated August, 1986, passed by the Additional sessions Judge, Faridkot, is set aside. Petitioner is acquitted of the charge.