Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Mangal Singh And Anr. on 16 May, 2007
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. The State is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents of the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, as narrated by Prem Kumar (PW-4), is that on 13.09.1998, deceased Amar Singh brother of Prem Kumar, met him at the brick kiln of Pawan Kumar and told him that the accused Reshma, wife of the deceased, used to quarrel with him. She used to get treatment from Mangal Baba, which was being objected by the deceased. The deceased wanted Prem Kumar to counsel the accused Reshma. On next day, Prem Kumar went to the house of the deceased at 8/8.15 A.M. When he went to the house of the deceased, the deceased was found dead. He found stab wound on the neck of the deceased and signs of vomiting. He went to the police station and gave statement (Ex. PH) and came back to the place of occurrence along with SI/SHO Darshan Singh (PW-11), who prepared inquest report, lifted signs of vomiting and got conducted post-mortem examination. PW-11 SI Darshan Singh arrested the accused Reshma and recorded her disclosure-statement, which led to recovery of blood-stained kirch (Ex. P-1) behind her residential house. He also arrested the accused Mangal Singh and after investigation, challaned both the accused. Dr. Sarbjit Singh Sandhu (PW-1) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body on 14.9.1998 at 4.20 P.M. and found following injuries:
An incised wound measuring 9 x 2 cm was present on the neck in its middle, obliquely placed. Clotted blood was present. On dissection of the neck layer by layer, there was cut in the vessels muscles, trachea nerves and esophagus. Clotted blood was present. Larynx, both the lungs, liver spleen kidneys and stomach were congested. Stomach contained about 150 cc of semi-digested food.
3. However, he did not given the cause of death immediately till the receipt of report of chemical examiner. The report was received on 27.11.1998 and no poison was detected. He gave the cause of death to be shock and asphyxia as a result of injury No. 1, which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. The prosecution examined Dr. Sarabjit Singh Sandhu PW-1, Jaswinder Singh son of Sohan Singh PW-2, HC Sham Lal PW3, Prem Kumar, complainant PW-4, Narpinder Singh son of Gurtej Singh PW-5, HC Balwant Singh PW-6, Constable Balwinder Singh PW-7, Brij Lal son of Des Raj PW-8, Sukhmander Singh Patwari, Circle Jaitu PW-9, ASI Harpreet Singh PW-10 and SI Darshan Singh PW-11. In addition to this evidence, the prosecution also tendered in evidence the reports of the forensic science laboratory Ex. PS and Ex. PT and report of the chemical examiner PC.
5. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Reshma, accused stated that she was falsely implicated at the instance of Sat Pal Doad, whom Prem Kumar had approached on being insulted by her. Mangal Singh also pleaded false implication at the instance of Sat Pal.
6. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed that in absence of direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution did not exclude possibility of innocence of the accused. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were:
(i) Recovery of dead body from the house where the accused Reshma was living with the deceased ;
(ii) Motive on account of illicit relations of Reshma with Mangal Baba, which was being objected by the deceased Amar Singh;
(iii) The accused were seen by Narpinder Singh (PW-5) on 13.9.1998 at 6.00 P.M. in suspicious circumstances and presence of vomiting near the dead body alongwtih smell of poison and recovery of dhatura seeds from the accused Reshma.
7. As regards recovery of dead body from the house of the accused, the trial Court observed that there was no blood near the dead body and thus, occurrence did not take place in the house nor recovery of dead body from the house, was proved. The dead body appeared to have been brought from somewhere else and kept in the house.
8. As regards absence of accused Reshma from the house, the trial Court observed that version of Prem Kumar (PW-4) that she was absent from the place of occurrence, was not corroborated by any other evidence. Place from where Reshma was arrested, was not mentioned.
9. As regards motive for the offence, evidence of PW-4 Prem Kumar was not categorical. He only stated that the deceased had told him that he was objecting to her treatment by the accused Mangal Baba. Version of her illicit relations was an improvement.
10. As regards the accused having been seen in mysterious circumstances near the plants of Dhatura poison, the trial Court observed that this circumstance was inconsequential in view of report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PG) negating the version of poison having been found in the stomach of the deceased.
11. As regards recovery of kirch at the instance of Reshma, the trial Court observed that the blood was not shown to have tallied with the blood of the deceased, even though blood of the deceased could be matched with the blood available on clothes of the deceased.
12. No independent witness was associated with the recovery and the place of recovery was accessible to all and sundry.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
14. It is well-settled that where evidence is purely of circumstantial in nature, circumstances must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and should lead to inference of guilt of the accused. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hanumant v. State of M.P. , which has been repeatedly followed in several decisions.
15. In the present case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, namely recovery of the dead body from the house where the accused Reshma was living with the deceased, her motive and recoveries, have been held not to be clearly established. The view taken by the trial Court in holding that the circumstances were not clearly established, is certainly a possible view and the same is not liable to be interfered with, even if two view are possible.
16. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:
21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra . The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat :
While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.
17. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the acquittal of the respondents.
18. The appeal is dismissed.