Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Daughter Accused Of Killing Father In 2003

Observing that the trial court seems to have unwittingly been "swayed by sentiment and prejudice" against the crime of patricide alleged against her, the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the conviction of a woman who was accused of murdering her father in 2003. The accused was 16 years and 4 months old at the time of incident 

“There are suspicious features appearing in the evidence which cast doubt on their (prosecution) version. The pieces of evidence on which the prosecution chose to rest its case were so fragile that they crumbled when this Court subjected them to close and critical examination, whereby the whole super-structure collapsed. It is not the conviction of the Court of a fact, that an accused person has committed a crime, but the satisfactory evidence of it on record that an offence is proved,” said Justice Aman Chaudhary.

The bench said the trial court had assumed many facets of the case and without scrutinizing the credibility of witnesses and being unmindful of the fact that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt, recorded her conviction.

The court was hearing the revision plea against the dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridkot, convicting and sentencing her for an offence under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The petitioner was accused of shooting her father dead in 2003. According to the prosecution, after 8-10 days of the incident she had given extra judicial confession to one Gurdev Singh, who as stated to be in visiting terms of her family. In the confession, she had allegedly admitted to have killed her father at the instance of one Gurinder Singh alias Goldi, her boyfriend.

In examination-in-chief, Gurdev Singh stated that the petitioner had told him that she had fallen in love with a boy 5-6 months prior to the occurrence, which came to the knowledge of her father Milkha Singh, who objected to this affair and tried to stop her to go to school. She later met the boy Gurinder Singh and he allegedly told him that he will give her some tablets about 100 in numbers and she should mix them in food and give them to the family members. When they fall unconscious she should pick up the gun of her grandfather and fire towards the head of her father, she is stated to have been told by Gurinder Singh. 

In execution of this design, she mixed the tablets in eatables to be consumed in the night and herself viewed the television and when all of them fell unconscious, she loaded the gun and pointed the same towards the head of her father and fired, Gurdev Singh said.

However, the court said there is nothing on record from which it can be discerned that any enquiry was made regarding its purchase and as to when and where these were handed over to her.

Justice Chaudhary further noted that, witness Balkar Singh, living right opposite the house of the deceased, had heard the shot while he was asleep and did not see the petitioner or anyone firing the gun.

The court said there is no evidence brought forth by the prosecution to prove proximity of Gurdev Singh with the family of the deceased. It added that Gurdev Singh in his examination-in-chief had also stated that the petitioner came to him after 8/9 days accompanied by Gurmail Singh Barnala and Kala Singh of Sander, however, they were not joined in the investigation.

"Thirdly, he then informed the police about the same on 29.08.2003, when his statement was recorded, inspite of the petitioner having confessed on 24.08.2003 i.e. 8/9 days from the date of occurrence seems implausible, he, being a frequent visitor at the police station, as per his cross- examination," said the court. 

The court also said the petitioner is said to have raised hue and cry, that attracted neighbours Gulzar Singh and Balkar Singh, to come to deceased person’s house, but this fact was not stated by either of them in their depositions.

“Fifthly, there is lack of corroboration to the same from any quarter, further denuding it of reliance,” said Justice Chaudhary.

The court said there are "yawning gaps" in the evidence which it has found very difficult to bridge in the chain of facts and circumstances that were required to be meticulously connected.

The court noted that, the co-accused Goldi, “was acquitted in the trial, against which it is not shown that any appeal was filed.”

“This Court finds it hard-pressed to give credence to such allegations in the absence of any compelling and credible evidence to substantiate the same. The proved discrepancies can be considered to conclude that the prosecution is not consistent in placing the actual story,” it said.

While setting aside the order of conviction the Court said, “As a sequitur to the analysis and discussion above, this Court comes to the ineluctable conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.”

Case Title: X v.State of Punjab

Appearance: Pradeep Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment