Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs Ashok Kumar And Others on 26 September, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM-A No.362 -MA of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-A No.362 -MA of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:26.9.2012
Balbir Singh ....... Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar and others .......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant.
****
SABINA, J.
Prosecution story, in brief, was that complainant Balbir Singh had married his two daughters namely Sharmila and Urmila with Karan Singh and Ashok Kumar respectively in the year 1997. However, Urmila was being harassed on account of insufficiency of dowry. On 10.10.2005, Ashok Kumar told the complainant about the death of Urmila. Thereafter, the complainant sent his brother-in-law Lakhmi Chand and Lala Ram @ Ram Jiwan for conducting inquiry qua the death of his daughter. They told the complainant that they had noticed swelling on the left eye of the deceased. They also disclosed that they had noticed vomit near the cot and blood stains on the bed.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against accused Ashok Kumar. CRM-A No.362 -MA of 2011 (O&M) 2
During the pendency of the trial, accused Lai Devi, Birbal and Kalia were also ordered to be summoned to face the trial as additional accused on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short). So far as trial of Kalia @ Narender is concerned, the same was sent to Juvenile Justice Board as he was a juvenile.
Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 29.7.2009 acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. Hence, the applicant-complainant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 29.7.2009, whereby respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the trial Court had noticed the statement of DW-8 Sharmila, sister of deceased Urmila. The said witness had stated that she was handicapped and could not do hard work. Her sister Urmila had sprayed the pesticide in the fields. Thereafter, they both returned to their house. Urmila had taken food without washing her hands. At night on 9.10.2005, they had gone to sleep. However, Urmila woke up during night and stated that she was not feeing well. Urmila started complaining of breathing problem and felt giddiness. Thereafter, Urmila fell on the cot. DW-8 further stated that she rushed to the house of the neighbour and when she came back, she found that Urmila had vomited and was lying unconscious. The CRM-A No.362 -MA of 2011 (O&M) 3 neighbour called a person, who was an unqualified doctor and after examining Urmila, he told them that she had died. She further stated that Ashok was on duty and her husband was not present at that time. Her in-laws were also not present in the house as they had gone to the fields. When Ashok returned back from duty, he informed his in-laws qua the death of Urmila. She further stated that on 13.10.2005, her parents and brother had come to their house and had proposed marriage of Parmila, her younger sister, with Ashok but the said proposal was declined by Ashok. Thereafter, the false case was lodged by her father.
Learned trial court has further noticed that as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, organophosphorous pesticide was detected in the viscera of the deceased. Learned trial Court has also observed that demand of dowry, as put forth by the complainant, could also not be believed in the facts and circumstances of the present case as daughter of the complainant Sharmila was married to Karan, real brother of Ashok. Sharmila, while appearing in the witness box, had not corroborated the version of the complainant qua demand of dowry by the accused from her sister. Further no demand of dowry was ever raised from DW-8 Sharmila, who is a handicapped person. The complainant also admitted that no demand of dowry had ever been raised from his daughter Sharmila. In these circusmtances, the reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the accused are sound reasons.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence CRM-A No.362 -MA of 2011 (O&M) 4 by the trial Court.
It is a case where, in view of evidence on record, it can safely be said that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the respondents. Even in cases where two views are possible, after acquittal, in appeal, benefit has to go to the accused.
Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:
"We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.
Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which CRM-A No.362 -MA of 2011 (O&M) 5 interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted.
However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. CRM-A No.362 -MA of 2011 (O&M) 6 If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed"
No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Since the application for leave to appeal is dismissed, the application seeking condonation of delay is rendered academic and is disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) Judge September 26, 2012 anita