- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Palwinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The deceased, Darshan Kaur, a dumb woman, and the respondents were neighbours. Because her house lacked toilet facilities, she allegedly used the respondents’ land for defecation. On 6-4-2001, while doing so, she was allegedly caught by two men, doused with kerosene, and set on fire in their cattle shed. Her husband (the present appellant) took her to the hospital where, the same day, an Executive Magistrate recorded her dying declaration in which she identified respondents Balwinder Singh and Daljit Singh as the assailants.
A second dying declaration was recorded on 11-4-2001 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ropar, in which she described two Sikh men and, during a test-identification parade, pointed to Kashmir Singh and Satwinder Singh. Questions arose about the authenticity of the second statement because her thumb impression did not appear on every page.
The accused sought discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Sessions Judge refused to discharge them. On revision, a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the application, holding that only Kashmir Singh and Satwinder Singh were identified and that the second dying declaration should be preferred. The present appeals, filed by the deceased’s husband, challenge that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court erred in evaluating and preferring one dying declaration over another at the stage of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC.
- What is the proper scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 227 CrPC—specifically, whether charges may be framed on the basis of “strong suspicion” without a full appreciation of evidence.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC by engaging in a detailed appreciation of evidence and preferring one dying declaration over the other.
- At the charge-framing stage, the court need only determine whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion exists; detailed evaluation of competing evidence is impermissible.
Respondents' Arguments
- The deceased was allegedly both deaf and dumb and paralytic; therefore, no reliance could be placed on the first dying declaration recorded through signs by the Executive Magistrate.
- If the first dying declaration is unreliable, the second is equally unreliable, making continued prosecution unjustified.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 | At the stage of framing charge, the accused has no right to produce defence material, and the court should not undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence. | The Supreme Court relied on this decision to hold that the High Court wrongly evaluated evidence while considering discharge under Section 227 CrPC. |
| Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766 | Cited in Padhi for being incorrectly decided on the question of considering defence evidence at the Section 227 stage. | The Court referenced Padhi’s criticism of Satish Mehra to reinforce the limited scope of enquiry when framing charges. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court delved into an appreciation of conflicting dying declarations—an exercise impermissible at the charge-framing stage. It reiterated that, under Section 227 CrPC, a Judge may frame a charge on “strong suspicion” and should not weigh evidence as if conducting a full trial. Relying on the decision in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, the Court emphasized that marshalling evidence is beyond the court’s domain at this preliminary stage.
The Court further noted that the High Court’s conclusion that the deceased was “both deaf and dumb” lacked evidentiary basis; even the respondents had described her only as dumb and paralytic in their own pleadings. Consequently, the High Court should not have preferred the second dying declaration over the first or limited the charge to two individuals when the first statement implicated Balwinder Singh and Daljit Singh.
Holding and Implications
The appeals were allowed and the High Court’s order discharging the respondents was set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court, which is directed to proceed with the sessions case expeditiously. All substantive contentions of the parties remain open for adjudication at trial.
Implications: The judgment reinforces the limited scope of enquiry under Section 227 CrPC, clarifying that courts must refrain from a detailed evaluation of evidence and may frame charges on the basis of strong suspicion. No new legal precedent is set, but the decision affirms the authority of Debendra Nath Padhi and restores the prosecution against all named respondents.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 14-12-2005 passed in Criminal Revision No. 2250 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the revision application filed by the accused-respondent herein questioning the correctness of the order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge refusing to discharge them in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed.
3. The husband of the deceased, Darshan Kaur is before us questioning the legality or validity of the said order.
4. Indisputably, the parties are neighbours. It is, furthermore, not in dispute that the deceased was a dumb lady.
5. The first information report proceeded on the basis that as they have no other place in their house for easing themselves, the deceased used to use the land of the respondents for that purpose. On 6-4-2001 early in the morning when she went to the land of the respondents, she was caught and set on fire after pouring kerosene on her.
6. The appellant before us was attracted by the fire and brought her to the hospital. On the same day i.e 6-4-2001 itself, her dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Chamkaur Sahib. She identified the respondents herein. The questions put to her and answers given thereto with signs are as under:
“Q. Whether you were set on fire before rising of the sun? Ans. Yes, with sign of head. Q. Who set you on fire? Ans. Two persons set me on fire one of them was open beard and one was with cutting beard. Q. Whether you can identify the person who set you on fire? Ans. Yes, with signs. And then she identified Daljit Singh and Balwinder Singh, sons of Faqir Singh resident of Dholran with sign of head. Q. In which place and how were you put on fire? Ans. With signs these two persons forcibly set me on fire in their cattle shed. Q. Whether they set you on fire after pouring kerosene? Ans. No.”
7. It, however, appears that another dying declaration was recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ropar on 11-4-2001. The material portion whereof reads as under:
“Aged 45-50 years. I have two sons and one daughter. Today morning at 5 a.m I had gone out. Two persons came. Both were Sikhs and were wearing turban tied and both were 6 ft in height. One of them was 40 years old and one of them is less aged whose name is not known. They are from my village. I don't know that, if there is any enmity with me or not. There is no toilet in the house to go out. They caught hold of me from the arms and took inside by opening the door. I shouted at 5 a.m but nobody heard my noise. There was no quarrel with these persons at any time. I had not even quarrelled with my own family. They had not caught me with bad intention but caught me to put me on the fire. After putting the fire my husband reached in 10-15 minutes and those persons ran away after putting the fire. I can recognise those persons and there is no quarrel in the house at any time and I never went out from the house by quarrelling. We are doing agriculture and there is no dearth of money. Tehal Singh is my dewar and we are living in the house together. I can recognise those two persons.”
8. Nine persons, thereafter, appear to have been produced before her and she is said to have identified Kashmir Singh, son of Gurbachan Singh and Satwinder Singh, son of Mohinder Singh.
9. It, however, appears that her left thumb impression was not taken on the foot of the page. The left thumb impression of the deceased appears only on the first page and that too only after the signatures of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate whereafter the fact that nine persons were produced for the test identification parade before her was recorded.
10. As indicated hereinbefore her left thumb impression was not taken at the end of the said statement. An application for discharge was filed before the learned Sessions Judge which, as noticed hereinbefore, has been dismissed.
11. The respondents themselves in their memo of revision filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana contended that the deceased Darshan Kaur was a deaf lady, who was paralytic also. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court while allowing the said revision application, inter alia, opined that the deceased was both deaf and dumb and she was paralytic also.
12. Inter alia, on the aforementioned premise and furthermore upon considering the acceptability of one or the other dying declaration, it was held:
(i) as the deceased has identified only Kashmir Singh and Satwinder Singh, there is no reason for the learned Sessions Judge to frame charges against the respondents;
(ii) the dying declaration recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate should be preferred to that of the dying declaration recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate;
(iii) it was not necessary for the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ropar to take the left thumb impression of the deceased on all pages.
(iv) there was no cause for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ropar to make out a false case of test identification parade conducted on 11-4-2001.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of evidence at the stage of the framing of the charges itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charges can also be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the Court at that point of time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 wherein it was held as under:
“23. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. Satish Mehra case (1996) 9 SCC 766 holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided.”
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, would submit that keeping in view the fact that the deceased was both deaf and dumb, no reliance can be placed upon the first purported dying declaration recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate, Chamkaur Sahib. If that be so, no reliance can be placed on the second dying declaration also.
15. It appears that the observation of the High Court that the deceased was both deaf and dumb is not based on any material. Apart from the other materials on record, as indicated by us heretobefore, even the respondents in their memo of revision had described the deceased merely as a dumb and paralytic person and not a deaf person. Furthermore, it was not the stage where the High Court would prefer one dying declaration to that of the other.
16. Indisputably, in her first dying declaration the deceased had identified respondents, Balwinder Singh and Daljit Singh. They were brought to the hospital for the purpose of identification and the learned Executive Magistrate recorded her statement on the basis of the signs made by her.
17. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. However, all the contentions of the parties shall remain open. The learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the sessions case pending before him as expeditiously as possible.
Alert