Karnail Kaur vs Gurmit Kaur and Others

Sabina, J.—Respondents No. 1 to 4 were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 354, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) vide judgment/order dated 12.5.2011. However, in appeal, the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 9.4.2012 acquitted respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges framed against them u/s 354 IPC and ordered their release on probation, while upholding their conviction under Sections 323 /34 IPC. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, she was acquitted of the charges framed against her. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Appellate Court had erred in acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges framed against them u/s 354 IPC and ordering respondents No. 2 to 4 to be released on probation.

Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4, on the other hand, has submitted that no case was made out qua commission of offence punishable u/s 354 IPC against respondents No. 1 to 4.

Learned Appellate Court, while acquitting respondents No. 1 to 4 of the charge framed against them u/s 354 IPC, held as under:-

The inter-se relationship of appellants is that two of the appellants Babbi and Manni are the sons of the appellant Gurmit Kaur, whereas appellant Gurmit Kaur is wife of Gurjant Singh appellant and mother of Babbi and Manni. It has also appeared in the statement of complainant Karnail Kaur that the wives of Babbi Singh and Manni Singh appellants were also standing at some distance at the place of occurrence. This Court thinks it highly improbable that the appellants, who also consisted of one female being mother of two appellants and being wife of one of the appellants Gurjant Singh, would open an indecent assault on the complainant in that way by throwing away all prudery. The complainant went to the house of the appellants on the pretext that she took a stay order with her on that day. No such stay order has been legally proved on the record in this case. It is not believable that a son would outrage the modesty of a lady on the presence of his own mother and wife. A mother would not normally prompt her sons and a wife would not prompt her husband to outrage the modesty of another lady despite the strained feelings between them. The conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offence u/s 354 IPC is unsustainable in the opinion of this Court. The son and daughter of complainant, who entered into witness box have deposed that the complainant was residing with one Jarnail Singh in an illicit way at Muktsar and they have given evidence against the complainant. Resultantly, this court is unable to uphold the findings of the court below holding the appellants Gurjant Singh and Manni Singh guilty of the offence under sections 354 IPC and appellants Babbi Singh and Gurmit Kaur of the offence u/s 354 /34 IPC. There was enmity of complainant with the appellants and it could also motivate the complainant to level such type of demeaning allegations against the appellants to disgrace them, who consisted of ladies also at the time of occurrence. The Judgment of the court below qua the offence u/s 354 IPC against appellants Gurjant Singh and Manni Singh qua the offence u/s 354 /34 IPC against appellants Babbi Singh and Gurmit kaur is not sustainable and the same is reversed in this appeal by acquitting the appellants Gurjant Singh, and Manni Singh of the offence u/s 354 IPC and appellants Babbi Singh and Gurmit Kaur of the offence u/s 354 /34 IPC.

The reasons given by the Appellate Court holding that no offence u/s 354 IPC could be said to be made out against respondents No. 1 to 4, are sound reasons and call for no interference. Conviction of respondents No. 2 to 4 qua commission of offence punishable u/s 323 IPC was upheld by the Appellate Court. The appellate Court rightly ordered the release of respondents No. 2 to 4 on probation with regard to their conviction for commission of offence punishable u/s 323 IPC. It has been noticed by the Appellate Court that respondents No. 2 to 4 were not previous convicts. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.