SUKHJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                       [2014] 10 S.C.R. 608

A                         SUKHJIT SINGH
                                  v.
                       STATE OF PUNJAB
                (Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2013)
                      SEPTEMBER 11, 2014.
B
               [DIPAK MISRA AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

        PENAL CODE, 1860:

c      s.364 - Conviction and,sentence of 10 years RI to
  accused husband - Affirmed by High Court - The evidence
  shows that the victim-wife remained in jail - None of the
  witnesses have stated anything about abduCtion - _Judgment
  of courts below set aside - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
D - s.313.
        CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

        s.313 - Statement of accused - When requisite
    questions have not been put to accused it has caused
E   immense prejudice to him, more so, when there is no
    evidence to establish his complicity in the alleged abduction.

        Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. The evidence of the mother of victim
F demonstrates that the victim had remained in Central Jail
  and she was not aware of the year when she remained
  in jail. The factum of her being in jail also gets support
  from the documents Exts. DA and DB. That apart, none
  of the witnesses have stated anything about the
G abduction. [para 9] [612-F-G]

        1.2. No incriminating material has been brought to
    the notice of the accused while putting questions u/s 313
    CrPC. There can be no scintilla of doubt that the when
H                               608
      SUKHJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                  609

the requisite questions have not been put to the accused A
it has caused immense prejudice to him, more so, when
there is no evidehce to establish his complicity in the
alleged abduction. The judgment of conviction and order
of sentence recorded by the trial court and affirmed by
the High Court is set aside. [para 10, 14 and 15] [613·A; B
615-G-H; 616-A]

     Ranvir    Yadav     v. State   of Bihar     2009
(7) SCR 653 = 2009(6) SCC 595; Tara Singh v. The
State 1951 SCR 729 =1951 AIR 441; Hate Singh Bhagat
Singh v. State of Madhaya Bharat AIR 1953 SC 468, Ajay C
Singh v. State of Mahrashtra 2007 (7) SCR 983 = 2007
(12) sec 341 - relied on
                    Case Law Reference:
                                                               D
    2009 (7) SCR 653         relied on            para 10
    1951 SCR 729             relied on            para 11
    AIR 1953 SC 468          relied on            para 12
    2007 (7) SCR 983         relied on            para 13      E
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 263 of 2013.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2012 of the ·
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal F
Appeal No. 978-SB of 2003.

    R. K. Talwar, Harikesh, Chander Shekhar Ashri for the
Appellant.

    V. Madhukar, AAG., Anvita Gowshish, Kuldip Singh for the   G
Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The present appeal, by special leave,   H
    610     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   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
B   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 P.S.
C   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.
D   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
E   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.
F
          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 branch,
G   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
H   25.08.2000.
       SUKHJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       611
                [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
    4. The prosecution to substantiate it case examined              A
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,
PW?, ARI of Police. After the evidence of the prosecution was
closed statement of the accused was recorded whose plea in           B
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.                                                              c
     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 the
plea that Labh Singh was the husband of Kuljit Kuar was not          D
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                  E
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              F
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         G
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 the              H
    612      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   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
B   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
c   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
D 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.

E       9. To appreciate the submissions raised at the Bar, we
  have, apart from perusing the judgment of the trial Court as 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
F 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.
G 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.
H
        SUKHJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       613
                 [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
     10. On a studied scrutiny of the questions put under              A
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 has          B
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.         c
    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:
                                                                       D
            "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          E
      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          F
      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 be used
      against him. The whole object of the section is to afford        G
      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
1.   (2009) a sec 595.
2.   AIR 1951 SC 441.                                                  H
    614       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 10 S.C.R.

A         which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to
          appreciate an,d 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
B         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
c         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
D         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
E   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
F         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
          on oath in his own defence. This may operate for the
G         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 Session$ Judge are
H   3.   AIR 1953 SC 468.
         SUKHJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                   615
                  [DIPAK MISRA, J.]
      intended in India to take the place of what in England and   A
      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 Mahrashtra 4 in following terms:
                                                                   B
            "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 C
      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 o
      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 E
      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
                                                                  F
      that he may be able to give such explanation as he
      desires to give."

     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             G
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
4.   c2001) 12 sec 341.                                            H
    616      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014) 10 S.C.R.


A   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.

B   Rajendra Prasad                                  Appeal allowed.