CASE NAME	Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177
CITATION	1952 AIR 354, 1952 SCR 94, 1953 Crl LJ 154
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan, Justice N. Chandrashekhra Aiyar and Justice Natwarlal H. Bhagwati
PETITIONER	Palvinder Kaur
RESPONDENT	State of Punjab
DECIDED ON	Decided on 22nd October, 1952

INTRODUCTION

Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1952, is a significant case in Indian legal history that is well-known for its intricate problems with evidence and criminal law. This historic case examines important legal doctrines related to confessions, evidence admissibility, and the legal system. The Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1952 case is regarded as a crucial resource for comprehending the subtleties of Indian criminal law. The Sessions Judge and the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s conviction of Palvinder Kaur under Section 201 of the IPC is at the center of this case. Palvinder Kaur faced trial for offenses related to her spouse, Jaspal Singh’s death. She was charged with giving her husband potassium cyanide. She requested a special leave of absence from the Hon’ble Supreme Court following her conviction. In this instance, it was noted that Jaspal Singh passed away inexplicably and that there isn’t any hard proof to determine what caused him to do so. 

Palvinder Kaur’s statement was a key component of the prosecution’s case, and the court regarded it as a confession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, rejected the same in the current petition and cleared up any misunderstandings around the confession and declaration. The Apex Court further criticized the High Court for making a decision based only on suspicion in the absence of concrete evidence of guilt. In the end, the Court cleared Palvinder Kaur of all accusations and said that there was insufficient evidence to prove Jaspal Singh’s death, therefore it would remain a mystery. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Palvinder Kaur, the accused in this case, was formerly married to Jaspal Singh, who has since passed away. The chief of Bhareli, Punjab, was the father of Jaspal Singh. Along with their two kids, Jaspal and Palvinder shared a home in Ambala called Bhareli House. Jaspal did not have a friendly relationship with his grandfather or father. He used to sell milk and eggs to augment his income in addition to living off of his father’s allowance. Mohinderpal Singh was the other accused, and he is nowhere to be located. He was Palvinder Kaur’s relative and periodically lived in Bhareli House. In this case, it was claimed that he had an affair with Palvinder Kaur. 

According to the prosecution, on 6-2-1950, Jaspal Singh received potassium cyanide from his wife, Palvinder Kaur, and Mohinderpal Singh. In a room in Ambala City, Jaspal Singh’s body was placed in a big trunk. Ten days later, on 16-2-1950, Mohinderpal and two friends, Kartar Singh and Amrik Singh, helped remove the trunk from the residence. They carried the trunk to the camp of Baldevnagar, where it was stored in a storehouse. Three days later, Mohinderpal, assisted by a servant, carried the trunk to Rajpura. Near the village of Chhat, he got into a jeep and dumped the trunk into the well. After that, the jeep was brought to a gurdwara and cleaned. 

Following the victim’s disappearance, Mohinderpal was questioned by his father, to whom he responded with a number of lies. After that, a notice about Jaspal Singh’s disappearance appeared in the Daily Milap. One month and ten days after the supposed murder, the well into which the trunk was dumped began to smell strongly. It was removed after being reported. The very following day, a post-mortem examination was conducted. The police did not take pictures of the deceased, though, and the body was permitted to be cremated. An FIR was filed against Mohinderpal and the appellant after more than two and a half months. Mohinderpal vanished from sight and was never seen again. As a result, only the appellant was the target of the initial legal actions. 

ISSUES RAISED

• Would Palvinder Kaur’s admission be accepted under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act as a confession? 
• Whether the High Court correctly convicted Plavinder Kaur under Section 201 of the IPC in connection with the murder of her husband?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the appellant

The appellant argued that the ruling in Dara Singh v. The State (1951) was illegal and that the High Court had violated the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused confession was an exculpatory remark that was not acceptable as evidence against the appellant and could not have been utilized against her. 

The appellant contended that offenses classified as Sections 302, 34, and 201 of the IPC are distinct offenses that were committed at various points in time. Since these offenses were a part of distinct transactions, the appellant’s conviction on these counts was erroneous. 

Additionally, it was argued that Mohinder Pal’s conduct and the statements he made to other witnesses had no bearing on Plavinder Kaur, the appellant. Furthermore, the High Court erred by accepting without further evidence the testimony of accomplices Karamchand and Ms. Lachhmi. In addition, the appellant’s case was furthered by the high court’s reliance on other circumstantial evidence, dismissing a number of harmless explanations that could have supported a different conclusion. 

The investigations were extremely delayed, and a lot of fresh information was untruely added to the case. Different stages of the story’s development were underway. Consequently, without ruling out the appellant’s innocence, the Court ought not to have depended on them. 

 Argument on behalf of the respondent

The prosecution maintained its position based on the case’s facts, claiming that on the afternoon of February 6, 1950, Jaspal Singh was poisoned with potassium cyanide by the appellant and Mohinderpal. The body was then placed into a sizable trunk and stored in one of the Ambala City house’s rooms. They drove the trunk in a Jeep from the residence to Baldev Nagar Camp around ten days later. Three days later, they carried the trunk over to a nearby well and dumped it inside. The Jeep was then cleaned and transported to a Gurdwara. 

JUDGMENT

Palvinder Kaur’s statement was deemed inadmissible as a confession under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by the Honorable Supreme Court. It was incorrect for the High Court to find the appellant guilty based only on the statement. The High Court used the appellant’s confession from April 15, 1950, as support for its decision to find her guilty in this case. In her confession, she revealed that her husband, Jaspal Singh, unintentionally ingested the medication intended for photo cleaning and then abruptly passed away. It is essential to provide evidence of an offense committed in order to establish the crime under Section 201 of the IPC. Conviction cannot be based on mere suspicion. The accused must be shown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of knowing or having cause to suspect that such an offense had been committed. The necessary information must be present, as well as the desire to save the perpetrator from punishment. He will aid, make the evidence to vanish, or provide fake information with this intention.

CONCLUSION

An important legal precedent in Indian jurisprudence, particularly in the areas of evidence and criminal law, is the ruling in the Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab case. As was previously mentioned, Palvinder Kaur was found guilty in this case of killing both her husband and her extramarital lover. She was exonerated, though, when the court dismissed the accusations.

Palvinder Kaur’s remark, which the High Court had previously interpreted as a confession, was deemed unconfessional by the Supreme Court according to Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The confession must acknowledge doing the crime, the court emphasized. A confession cannot be equated with an admission of innocence. 

The Supreme Court further emphasized that the High Court should not have made its ruling based only on assumptions and supposition. In criminal procedures, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is crucial. The verdict further emphasizes that the confession will either be accepted in its entirety or rejected in part.  All things considered, the ruling upholds the core ideas of criminal law procedure. When assessing guilt, reliable evidence and adherence to procedural fairness are required. 

The above-discussed case of Palvinder Kaur marks a significant milestone, especially in understanding the application of evidence laws and criminal procedures. The Supreme Court’s analysis highlights the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and scrutiny of evidence. It is important that each facet of a confession be scrutinized clearly to establish guilt. A statement containing both inculpatory and exculpatory parts cannot be taken as an admissible confession under the Indian Evidence Act before a court of law. Such statements shall be non-admissible, and the court shall not rely on them to convict the accused. A confession has to be taken as a whole and in its entirety. Courts cannot take one part and leave the other while basing their decision.