Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju And Another on 6 October, 2010
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM No. 148-MA of 2009
Date of decision: 6.10.2010
State of Haryana
....... Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.
****
SABINA, J.
The respondent were tried for an offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). However, vide impugned judgment dated 31.10.2008, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ambala acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. The applicant-State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above.
The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, reads thus:-
"It is the version of the prosecution that on 22.12.2005, Inspector Surjit Kumar reached house CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 2 No.7 HSEB Colony, One Mega Watt Power House, Ambala Cantonment, in connection with verification of the circumstances of death of Ravneesh Kumar, son of Shri Vinod Chand, where an application was presented by Jyoti Bhardwaj, complainant, to the above stated Inspector alleging therein that her brother Ravneesh Kumar Bhardwaj used to reside in HSEB Colony, Ulfa Power House, Ambala, who had died on 19.12.2005 at Government Medical College, Chandigarh; that her brother was married to Pooja, daughter of Narinder Sharma on 17.2.2005 and he was not going well with his wife; that three months after the marriage, her sister-in- law started living separately with her brother; that her brother did not wish to live separately, but he agreed to live separately on account of stubbornness of Pooja and on account of the advice given by complainant side; that complainant and her mother used to reside at Jandli; that even thereafter, her mother used to meet them and he used to tell that he was not going well with Pooja and he further revealed that some Sanjay Rana, resident of Lal Kurti, Ambala Cantonment, had illicit relations with Pooja, who was meeting her in the CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 3 absence of the brother of the complainant and brother of the complainant was silent taking into account the society and he was worried about the future of Chirag; that they tried to make Pooja understand and her parents were also informed but instead of making Pooja to understand, they blamed the complainant side for levelling false allegations upon Pooja; that the parents of Pooja threatened to implicate the complainant side in a dowry case; that Pooja in front of her parents, complainant, mother of the complainant and Hatinder Singh, held out threat that if they tried to stop her, she would make them to go to jail and the visits of Sanjay Rana in the house would not be stopped in any case; that Ravneesh told that he was under compulsion due to the future of his child; that on 4th December, 2005, brother of the complainant Ravneesh came to her and told that he was very much troubled and his tolerance had come to an end and he was also worried about his life and he was under the fear that Pooja and Sanjay Rana might kill him as they were holding out such threats to him and they could even cause harm to his son; that they tried to make her brother understand that there was nothing to be CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 4 worried about and legal course would be adopted; that on 13th December, 2005 (Tuesday), complainant received a mobile phone call at about 1915 hours that her brother had got burns accidently and he had been taken to Government Medical Collecte; that thereafter, complainant reached Government Medical College with her mother and found her brother Ravneesh burnt to the extent of 86% and he remained unconscious for six days; that they were waiting for his gaining consciousness; that on 19.12.2005 at about 1500 hours, her brother had died; that on 19.12.2005 in the night, when they reached the house of the brother of the complainant, it was revealed that her sister-in-law and her mother, brother and father were destroying the evidence of the occurrence, that the neighbours told them at at the time of occurrence, they had heard the noise; that complainant had the firm belief that Pooja and her paramour Sanjay Rana had jointly created the circumstances that Ravneesh had died by burns"
After hearing the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves dismissal.
Learned trial Court, in para Nos. 36 to 45 of its judgment, CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 5 has observed as under:-
"36. In the FIR, it was mentioned that on account of the stubbornness of Pooja, deceased started living separate from his parents. This fact has been disproved by the documentary evidence, wherein it has been clarified that deceased did not share good/cordial relations with his mother and the complainant. There is no corroborative evidence about the telling of the relationship between both the accused to the parents of Pooja and her subsequent threat. It was mentioned in the FIR that Pooja insisted upon her relations with co-accused. Had this been true, there would have been divorce proceedings, as no husband would give continence to such instance by his wife. When there was threat, as mentioned in the FIR, then the case would have been lodged. As far as destruction of the evidence by Pooja and the members of her family is concerned, as mentioned in the FIR, there was no occasion to destroy the evidence at such a belated stage and they would have certainly utilized the time for this purpose prior to the death of the deceased.
37.PW2 Ram Chander had stated that he had not seen anyone except Pooja. He also stated that CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 6 Pooja pulled her husband inside the room. The deposition of PW-2 Ram Chander has to be seen with great circumspection because he was introduced in the case at quite a belated stage. He stated that on 13.12.2005 at the time of the incident, only daughters of Ram Lal were in their house. He stated that when accused Pooja had gone to their house to make a telephonic call, he had not gone with her. He also stated that daughters of Ram Lal were also standing outside their quarter. He also stated that four-five persons and four-five ladies were also present there at that time and none of them had gone upstairs because accused Pooja did not allow them. It appears quite unrealistic that several people are there and they have neither informed the police nor they have put off the fire when the deceased was burning with the fire and his wife was not allowing the people present there to go inside the house. This is more so when those persons were from Power Colony. PW-2 stated that all of them were doing nothing and watching the incident silently. This silence, as attributed by PW-2, is beyond comprehension. PW-2 admitted CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 7 that main Ambala-Jagadhari Road was at a distance of about ten steps. When PW-2 stated that two-three Army personnel were also present there. The Army personnel were stated to be present prior to reaching of the taxi at the spot. He further stated that accused Pooja even did not allow those Army personnel to go to her house. He stated that the taxi came at the spot at about 8.30 p.m. He further stated that Pooja had taken around ten minutes when she had made a call from the house of Ram Lal and during that period, they kept standing there. He stated that his sister-in-law Basanti Devi was also there and she had gone inside the quarter after knowing about the incident. He further stated that he had not given information to Ravi, President of the union of electricity employees and also his sister-in-law had also not informed Ravi or her Department. This silence is simply not understandable. It is also not understandable why the statement of sister-in-law of PW2 was not recorded. PW3 to PW6 were formal witnesses.
38. PW7 was Shri Rajesh Bhankhar, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh, who CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 8 proved Ex.P-13 to Ex.P14.
39. PW-8 Ram Pal, Assistant Sub-Inspector stated that he reached hospital of Sector 32, Chandigarh on 17.12.2005 and relatives of Ravnish deceased were also present there, but no complaint/statement/report of any kind was made to him by any of the relatives of the deceased with regard to involvement of anybody. He stated that Ravnish Bhardwaj had made statement Ex.P23 without any pressure. He stated that he attested Ex.P23 along with Head Constable Jaswant Singh and Dr.Parmindder Singh. He stated further that even on 20.12.2005, nobody made any report/complaint or statement regarding involvement of accused in the present case for causing death of deceased. He also stated that dead body was handed over to Pooja. Statement of PW8 whows that there is no fault in recording of Ex.P23. Moreover, if Ex.P23 was to be disproved by the prosecution some attempt could be made to introduce the doctor by way of additional evidence under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
40. PW9 Head Constable Jaswant Singh CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 9 stated that on 14.12.2005, he remained for whole night alongwith Constable Krishan Kumatr and they remained till 6.00 pm on 15.12.2005 and again on 17.12.2005, they remained in the hospital from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm when relatives of Ravnish Bhardwaj were also present there, but no complaint/report/statement was made to them against the accused and same was true with regard to 20.12.2005.
41. PW10 Ravi Kumar stated that his statement was recorded after two-three days of the death of deceased and thereafter, he stated that his statement was recorded on 26.12.2005 by the police.
42. PW11 Dr.Vipin Gupta stated about the treatment etc. PW12 Constable Ram Saran had prepared scaled site plan. PW13 Inspector Baljinder Singh prepared the report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
43. PW14 Jyoti Bhardwaj stated that she was residing at Delhi at the time of the occurrence. She admitted that she was at Ambala when her brother separated from them. Again she stated that she was living in Delhi at that time. Her CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 10 statement is clear with regard to separation. She stated that she did not know the name of the school and class of Chirag as her brother had never discussed that issue with her. She further stated that Ravnish was loanee and not just a guarantor. This fact has been falsified by the documents. She expressed ignorance about the notice through an advocate upon Tata Home Finance for withdrawal of his guarantee. She expressed ignorance about any matrimonial litigation between Pooja and Ravnish. She also stated that she had no idea when Pooja had purchased two vehicles which were being plied as taxies. She stated that she could not tell monthly instalments. She further stated that the vehicles were purchased by Pooja after separation from them. She also stated that she did not know when her brother used to leave the house and returned back from the office after separation from them. She denied the pendency of criminal case arising out of FIR No.82 of 1999 against her brother but it was proved by the defence. She stated that her mother lodged a complaint against Ravnish, Pooja, parents of Pooja and brother of CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 11 Pooja to the police but no case was registered. She further stated that 10-12 relatives had visited the hospital during the treatment of deceased Ravnish Bhardwaj. She also stated that some colleagues of her brother had also visited him. She stated that she could not tell whether police of Ambala had come to the hospital on 14, 15 and 17, December, 2005 but she admitted that police had visited the hospital in her presence several times. She stated that she did not make any representation to Superintendent of Police or any higher authority to the effect that Station House Officer had pressurized her to make the changes in the last paragraph of her written complaint or the Station House Officer had told her that she should have mentioned that accused had created some circumstances which compelled her brother to commit suicide instead of the fact that her brother was murdered by the accused or that accordingly she had to change her version in order to get the First Information Report registered. She admitted that son of her brother named Chirag was still living with accused Pooja. She admitted that the TATA Home Finance Loan CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 12 was still outstanding in the name of her mother and she was paying the instalments. From the statement of PW Jyoti Bhardwaj it is clear that she was not conversant with several important aspects of the life of her brother after he started living separately from the complainant. The statement of Jyoti Bhardwaj does not inspire much confidence there is hardly and valid explanation for not bringing in First Information Report the exact version as pronounced by her in the Court. The nature of her deposition gives credence to the theory of the defence. In the circumstances of the case deceased was not expected to reveal the theory of illicit relations of his wife to the complainant.
36. PW15 Inspector Surjit Kumar stated that complaint Ex.P1 was already written by Jyoti Bhardwaj and he had sent the same for registration of the First Information Report. He stated that when samples Ex.P7 to P-9 were taken on the spot no case was registered against anybody.
37. PW16 Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar stated that prior to 22.12.2005 there was no complaint of any kind against the accused. He stated that Ravi Kumar did not meet him CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 13 on 26.12.2005 and before the arrest of Pooja statement of Ram Chandder was not recorded. He admitted that it had come in the investigation through the statement of Pooja accused that deceased Ravnish Bhardwaj was involved in 2/3 criminal cases. He stated that he had not recorded the statement of persons who were residing in the vicinity/neighbourhood. Everything does not appear well with what he had done. PW17 Dr.Swati Sharma stated that possibility of accidental burns could not be ruled out."
The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them are sound reasons. Thus, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them.
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, CRM No. 148-MA of 2009 14 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."
Learned State counsel has failed to show any mis-reading of evidence on record. No ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE October 06, 2010 anita