Wife’s Mere Presence with Principal Accused Is Not Proof of Murder Conspiracy: Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects ‘Improved’ Witness Version, Upholds Acquittal
Case Name: Kailash Chand Saini v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 3 September 2026
Citation: CRA-AD No. 306 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Puja Chopra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the mere presence of a woman at the scene of an offence, whether as the wife or companion of the principal accused, does not by itself establish her participation in a criminal conspiracy to commit murder. A charge under Section 120-B IPC requires cogent evidence of a prior meeting of minds or agreement to commit the illegal act. Allegations of exhortation introduced subsequently by a prosecution witness, when absent from the FIR and the witnesses’ previous statements to the police, constitute material improvements and cannot safely form the basis of conviction. Upholding the respondent’s acquittal, the Court reiterated that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and gives rise to a double presumption in favour of the accused. An appellate court cannot reverse such an acquittal merely because another view of the evidence is possible; interference is justified only where the trial court’s view is perverse, manifestly unreasonable or contrary to the evidence.
Summary: The appeal was filed by the father of deceased Karan Saini against the judgment dated 9 June 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, acquitting respondent No. 2, Amarvir Kaur, of the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The prosecution arose from FIR No. 106 dated 17 October 2019, registered at Police Station Phagwara, District Kapurthala, concerning the murder of Karan Saini.
According to the prosecution, the deceased and his friends had gone to Haveli during the intervening night of 16 and 17 October 2019. At about 12:45 a.m., they noticed a newly married couple quarrelling with another family. One of the persons involved allegedly attacked a member of that family with a sharp-edged weapon. Shortly thereafter, while Karan Saini was putting the key into his Activa, Jaspinder Singh allegedly stabbed him in the chest. Karan was taken first to the Civil Hospital, Phagwara, and thereafter referred to a hospital in Jalandhar, where he succumbed to his injuries.
The prosecution alleged that Amarvir Kaur, who was present with Jaspinder Singh, had participated in a criminal conspiracy. It was contended in the appeal that one of the eyewitnesses had stated that she exhorted Jaspinder Singh to attack the deceased and thereafter accompanied him towards the vehicle. The appellant argued that her presence, conduct and alleged exhortation established a common agreement among the accused to commit the illegal act.
The High Court found that the presence of Amarvir Kaur at Haveli was not, by itself, sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy. PW-1 Ashutosh Sharma did not attribute any act of instigation, exhortation or participation to her. His testimony indicated only that she pulled her husband, Jaspinder Singh, towards the Subway area and subsequently left in the car. Nothing in his examination suggested that she had agreed with the principal accused to commit the murder.
The Court further noticed that PW-2 Sachin subsequently introduced a new version alleging that Amarvir Kaur had exhorted Jaspinder Singh to kill Karan Saini and had assisted in restraining the deceased. However, these allegations did not appear in the witness’s earlier statement to the police. The earlier statements contained no reference to any exhortation, instigation or proclamation by Amarvir Kaur, nor any assertion that she had brought the car or facilitated the offence.
The Court found material discrepancies between the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding Amarvir Kaur’s location, conduct and alleged role. These improvements substantially weakened the reliability of the prosecution case. The appellant-father also referred to the alleged instigation in his subsequent testimony, but he was admittedly not present at the place of occurrence and had made no such allegation in his initial examination-in-chief.
The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove any prior meeting, agreement or concert between Amarvir Kaur and the principal accused from which a criminal conspiracy could reasonably be inferred. Her presence as Jaspinder Singh’s wife and her act of leaving the place with him could not, without additional incriminating evidence, establish the offence under Section 120-B IPC.
Addressing the scope of an appeal against acquittal, the Court relied upon Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 495, and Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2016 SC 1160. It reiterated that an order of acquittal reinforces the accused’s original presumption of innocence. The appellate court must therefore exercise restraint and cannot substitute its own view merely because a different interpretation of the evidence is possible. Where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible and founded upon a proper appreciation of the evidence, the acquittal must remain undisturbed.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal and affirmed the judgment dated 9 June 2026 acquitting Amarvir Kaur of the charge of criminal conspiracy. It found that the prosecution had failed to prove any prior agreement or meeting of minds and that the alleged exhortation attributed to her was a material improvement unsupported by the eyewitnesses’ earlier statements. Since the Trial Court’s view was plausible, properly reasoned and free from perversity, no appellate interference was warranted.