Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF PUNJAB versus GURDIP KAUR

Decided
21 October 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 305 · 2008 INSC 1192

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

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 Sant Singh who was acquitted by the trial Court.

pp. 305–306, margin F

2

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 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.

p. 306, margin B

3

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.

p. 306, margin D

4

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.

p. 306, margin E

5

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. N.J. Appeal dismissed.

p. 306, margin G