Punjab-Haryana High Court
Crl. Appeal No. D-492-Db Of 2009(O&M) vs State Of Punjab ---Respondent on 16 October, 2012
Author: Rekha Mittal
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {1}
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of Decision: October 16, 2012
1.Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009(O&M)
Lachhman Singh @ Roopa ---Appellant
versus
State of Punjab ---Respondent
2.Crl. Appeal No. D-1079-DB of 2009(O&M)
State of Punjab ---Appellant
versus
Jagwinder Singh ---Respondent
3.Crl. Revision No. 2210 of 2009
Harkanwal Singh ---Petitioner
versus
Jagwinder Singh and another ---Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal
Present: Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate
for the appellant(in CRA No. D-492DB of 2009)
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
for State of Punjab( in all the three cases)
***
1.To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest ?
REKHA MITTAL, J.
1. By way of this judgment we shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009, Criminal Appeal No.D-1079 DB of 2009 and Criminal Revision No.2210 of 2009, as these are off shoot of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.4.2009 Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {2} passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, in Sessions Case No.114 of 12.8.2006 in respect of FIR No. 70 dated 19.4.2006 registered in Police Station, Dharamkot, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") whereby Lachhman Singh @ Roopa son of Chand Singh has been convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as detailed hereinbelow and his co-accused, Jagwinder Singh @ Kaka son of Chand Singh has been acquitted of the offence:-
"To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years."
2. This case relates to the murder of Baljit Kaur wife of Lachhman Singh and Hardeep Singh, son of Nirmal Singh. The occurrence in question took place on 19.4.2006 at about 2-00 p.m. in the house of Lachhman Singh situated at village Talwandi Mallian, District Moga. The first information report was lodged by Harkanwal Singh, cousin brother of Hardeep Singh, which led to the registration of formal FIR Ex. P1/B, in Police Station Dharamkot. During investigation of the case, dead bodies of Baljit Kaur and Hardeep Singh were got post mortem examined after inquest proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer. Accused Lachhman Singh was arrested on 19.4.2006. Blood was lifted from the spot and was taken into possession after preparing sealed parcel. The blood stained bed sheet, Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {3} chuni, and other clothes stained with blood were also taken into police possession. Belongings of the deceased after their post mortem examination were also taken into police possession on 28.4.2006. Accused Lachhman Singh suffered a disclosure statement which led to recovery of dah, weapon of offence and the same was taken into possession. Co-accused Jagwinder Singh was arrested on 2.5.2006. Disclosure statement made by Jagwinder Singh during his interrogation, led to recovery of his blood stained clothes. On receipt of report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code was submitted for trial of accused.
3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence under Section 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Both the accused were charge sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC while invoking the provisions of Section 34 IPC against accused Jagwinder Singh. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined Harkanwal Singh, complainant, PW-1, Mohinder Kaur PW-2, Boota Singh Gill, Photographer PW-3, HC Amar Singh PW-4, Gursewak Singh, Draftsman PW-5, SI Manjit Singh PW-6 (Investigating Officer), HC Kulwant Singh PW-7, SI Sikander Singh PW-8, HC Manjit Singh PW-9, HC Balwinder Singh PW-10, ASI Sanbir Singh PW-11 and Dr. Jatinder Syal, Medical Officer PW-12.
Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {4} Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ex. P.41 was tendered into evidence.
5. On evidence of the prosecution being closed, both the accused were examined in terms of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. They denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication. However, they examined Dr. Ajay Kumar Jhanji, Medical Officer DW-1, Param Bibi DW-2 and Shamsher Singh DW-3 in their defence.
6. Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in the appeal preferred by convict Lachhman Singh. We have heard amicus curiae, Ms. Tanu Bedi and Sh. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, for State of Punjab and gone through the records.
7. Counsel for appellant Lachhman Singh has been fair enough to concede that murder of Baljit Kaur and Hardeep Singh was committed by Lachhman Singh, husband of Baljit Kaur, however, it is submitted that the present case falls within the purview of Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the said plea of grave and sudden provocation can be culled out from the evidence of the prosecution itself. It is further argued that Lachhman Singh came to his house for his afternoon meals and on finding his wife Baljit Kaur with Hardeep Singh in a compromising position, he lost his control and as a result thereof, Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {5} caused multiple injuries to both Baljit Kaur and Hardeep Singh, which actually proved fatal. She has further submitted that the appellant cannot be deprived of the benefit of defence of sudden provocation merely on the ground that he has not raised such a plea either during the cross examination of the witnesses of the prosecution or by way of defence. It is further argued that the appellant had set out the plea of private defence of person but she does not press that plea which is of no avail to the appellant in the given circumstances of the case.
8. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that in the absence of such plea raised during trial, it is not open for the appellant to take a complete somersault and to raise an additional plea. It has been further argued that as the plea of the appellant in respect of exercise of right of private defence of person failed in view of medical evidence on record, the appellant has chosen to raise another plea of grave and sudden provocation and the same cannot be allowed. It is submitted that as the appellant knew prior to the occurrence that his wife is carrying on illicit relationship with Hardeep Singh, he cannot be heard to say that there was grave and sudden provocation when he noticed his wife with Hardeep Singh in his (appellant's) house. It is further argued that both the dead bodies had clothes on their person, as clearly shown in the photographs, therefore, the plea of the appellant cannot be accepted that he found his wife-Baljit Kaur and Hardeep Singh in a compromising position which caused him grave and sudden provocation to cause their death.
Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {6}
9. Before we proceed to consider the merits of the case, it is necessary to refer to the testimony of Dr. Jatinder Syal PW-12, complainant Harkanwal Singh PW-1 and Mohinder Kaur PW-2.
10. Dr. Jatinder Syal PW-12, conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Hardeep Singh and Baljit Kaur on 20.4.2006. On examination of dead body of Hardeep Singh, he found following injuries on his person:-
1. 3.5 cm x 1.25 cm incised wound Lt side of fore head.
2. 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound Lt parietal region 6 cm above pinna.
3. 7.5 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound Lt parietal region just below injury No. 2 underlying bone is fractured.
4. 8 cm x 2.0 cm incised wound on Lt post auricular region underlying bone is fractured.
5. 6.0 cm x 1.75 cm incised wound starting from Lt pinna to post auricular region.
6. Left ear lobule is separated by 12.0 cm x 2.5 cm incised wound Lt side of neck
7. 6.5 cm x 3.0 cm incised wound vertical starting from lower lip to below chin underlying bone is fractured.
8. 9.0 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound Rt side of face starting from Rt angle of mouth
9. 5.5 cm x 1.75 cm incised wound Rt side of face just lateral to right eye Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {7}
10. 6.5 cm x 1.0 cm incised wound starting from Rt pinna to post auricular region.
11. 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound post auricular region just below injury No. 10
12. 4.0 cm x 1.0 cm incised wound part of neck at its middle
13. 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm incised wound below injury No. 12
14. 2.75 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound Lt clavicular region
15. 3.5 cm x 2.0 cm incised wound on lateral aspect of Lt at its middle
16. 10.0 cm x 5.0 cm incised wound on post medial aspect of Lt elbow bone is cut.
17. 5.5cm x 2 cm incised wound Ist web space of Lt hand
18. 8.0 cm x 5.5 cm incised wound anterior lateral aspect of Lt knee underlying bone is cut and is coming out of the wound.
19. Multiple abraded bruise present on both shoulders, arms and chest.
He has opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries described, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between injuries and death was instantaneous and probable time between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. He Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {8} has proved copy of post mortem report Ex. P-37, pictorial diagram Ex. P-38 and inquest report Ex. P-16.
11. On post mortem examination of dead body of Baljit Kaur, following injuries were found on her person:-
1. 5.5 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound on middle R. pinna extending to post auricular region of scalp.
2. 9.0 cm x 2.5 cm incised wound on right lateral part of neck.
3. 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound on post part of neck 3 cm below injury No. 2
4. 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound on posterior part of chest on Lt side medial to scapula.
5. 4.0 cm x 3.0 cm abraded wound Lt. shoulder
6. 3.75 cm x 0.5 cm incised wound just below lower lip
7. 2.5 cm x 1.0 cm incised wound on anterior part of neck at its middle
8. 4.0 cm x 3.0 cm lacerated wound on upper part of Rt.
Shoulder
9. 2.0 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound lateral to injury No. 8
10. 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm incised wound injury below Lt.
clavicle.
11. 2.5 cm x 0.75 cm incised wound just lateral to injury No. 10
12. 2.5 cm x 0.75 cm lacerated wound on dorsum of Rt.
Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {9} Forearm 7.0 cm distal to elbow
13. 4.5 cm x 1.5 cm incised wound 5.0 cm proximal to Rt. Wrist.
14. 7.5 cm x 3.5 cm incised wound on post aspect of Lt. Elbow.
15. Multiple incised wounds dorsum of Rt. Hand.
16. 5.5. cm x 2.5 cm incised wound dorsum of Lt. wrist. The cause of death was opined to be shock and hemorrhage from injuries in neck. The injuries were stated to be ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has proved copy of post mortem report Ex. P-39, pictorial diagram Ex. P- 40 and inquest report Ex. P-17.
12. Harkanwal Singh is the author of the first information report lodged on his statement Ex. P-1. He has deposed that on 19.4.2006, at about 2-00 p.m., he heard hue and cry in the house of Lachhman Singh. He went there and found the door of the house locked from inside. When he was standing in front of the door he heard hue and cry being raised in the said house. He asked Lachhman Singh to open the door but Lachhman Singh threatened to cause harm to him and said that he would cut him into pieces as he had already cut Hardeep Singh into pieces. Hardeep Singh is the son of elder brother of his father. He came to his house, took his motor cycle and went to the house of Ajaib Singh, whose wife is Sarpanch of the village. When Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {10} he went in the street to go to the house of Ajaib Singh, he noticed Jagwinder Singh @ Kaka carrying his (Lachhman's) kid (a male child) in his arms. His clothes were stained with blood and blood was oozing from his head. Jagwinder Singh was running from his house towards the main road. He has further deposed that he went to gurudwara sahib of the village where Ajaib Singh met him. He along with Ajaib Singh, came to the place of occurrence. On the asking of Ajaib Singh, Lachhman Singh opened the door of his house and he was armed with dah, which was blood stained and he ran away from the spot. He and Ajaib Singh entered the house of Lachhman Singh and found the dead bodies of Hardeep Singh and Baljit Kaur lying in a pool of blood. Hardeep Singh had injuries on his mouth, face, head, arms, legs and a cut injury on his neck. Baljit Kaur also had similar type of injuries. It is further stated that about 15 days prior to the occurrence, the family of Jagwinder Singh visited the house of Nirmal Singh to express their grievance that his son Hardeep Singh is having illicit relationship with Baljit Kaur wife of Lachhman Singh.
13. Mohinder KaurPW-2 is mother of Hardeep Singh. She has deposed that on 19.4.2006 at about 2-00 p.m. her husband's cousin called her from her house. She came out of the house. Kaka son of Chand Singh was coming from the side of the house of Roopa. He was carrying a male child of Roopa. His clothes were blood stained and he had an injury on his fore head. Kaka said whatever was required to be done, has been done. Harkanwal Singh went to the house of Sarpanch Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {11} of the village. Two days prior to the occurrence, Kaka had come to their house to make a complaint to restrain her son Hardeep Singh and later on she came to know that Hardeep Singh had illicit relationship with the wife of Roopa namely, Baljit Kaur. As the accused suspected her son having illicit relations with Baljit Kaur, he murdered him.
14. Before we adjudicate upon the issue as to whether it is open for the appellant to raise a plea of defence which was not taken up before the trial Court, we would like to deal with, what is grave and sudden provocation and further as to what is the standard of grave and sudden provocation applicable to reasonable man.
15. The meaning of expression "grave" and "sudden" provocation has come up for consideration before the Courts in several cases. The expression "grave" indicate that provocation should be of such a nature so as to give cause for alarm to the appellant. "Sudden" means an action which must be quick and unexpected so as to provoke the appellant. The question whether provocation was grave and sudden, is a question of fact and not one of law. Each case is to be considered according to its own facts. No abstract standard of reasonableness can be laid down. What a reasonable man do in certain circumstances depends upon the customs, manners, way of life, traditional values etc. in short, the cultural, social and emotional back ground of the society to which an accused belongs. The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated as follows:-
(1)The test of "grave and sudden" provocation is whether a Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {12} reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-
control.
(2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3) The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence.
(4)The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation."
Reference in this regard can be made to Mancini v. Appellant [1942] A.C. 1, Charanjit Singh and another v. State of Haryana 2005(3)RCR (Criminal) 242, Sukhlal Sarkar vs. Union of India (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 703 and K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1962 AIR (SC) 605.
16. It is an undisputed rather settled position of law that burden of proving the existence of circumstances brining the case Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {13} within any of the general exceptions under the IPC, 1860 or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the IPC, or in any law defining the offence, is upon the accused and the court shall presume absence of such circumstances. Even if the accused fails to adduce evidence to prove the existence of circumstances bringing his case within any Exception to Section 300 IPC, the Court may look to the evidence of the prosecution to find out whether the burden cast by Section 105 of Evidence Act stands discharged by the accused by preponderance of probabilities.
17. This brings us to the most crucial question as to if the appellant-convict has not raised a plea during trial that his case falls within any exception, can he raise such a plea before the appellate court? In the instant case, we have noticed that the accused had adopted another defence (right of private defence of person) which has been suggested during cross examination of prosecution witnesses i.e. Harkanwal Singh PW-1 and Mohinder Kaur PW-2. It has also been suggested during cross examination of complainant Harkanwal Singh PW-1, that the appellant noticed his wife and Hardeep Singh together in a compromising position. Harkanwal Singh and Mohinder Kaur, in their examination-in-chief have stated that few days prior to the occurrence, Jagwinder Singh-accused, admittedly the brother of Lachhman Singh, came to the house of Hardeep Singh to express his grievance in respect of illicit relationship of Hardeep Singh with Baljit Kaur. This requires us to consider, if in the light of the aforesaid facts, Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {14} we can examine whether benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC can be extended to Lachhman Singh. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of U.P. vs. Lakhmi 1998(4)Supreme Court Cases 336 dealt with a similar situation. In the said case, accused Lakhmi killed his wife. He was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC by the Court of Sessions. His appeal was accepted by the High Court and he was acquitted of the charge against him. The State preferred an appeal against the judgment of acquittal and the matter came up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appellant attempted to raise a defence under Section 84 of the IPC by examining his mother to show that he was of unsound mind. The defence of the accused was repelled by the trial court and findings in this regard, recorded by the trial court were upheld by the Apex Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed another alternate defence which had been suggested during cross examination of prosecution witnesses that his wife and Ramey PW-2, were together on the bed during early hours of date of occurrence. The suggestion put to the prosecution witnesses was considered and examined by the Court in order to record if the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC should be extended to the accused. An extract from the judgment in Lakhmi's case (supra) reads as follows:-
"The law is that burden of proving such an exception is on the accused. But the mere fact that the accused adopted another alternative defence during his examination under Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {15} Section 313 of the IPC without referring to Exception I of Section 300 IPC is not enough to deny him of the benefit of the exception, if the Court can cull out materials from evidence pointing to the existence of circumstances leading to that exception. It is not the law that failure to set up such a defence would foreclose the right to rely on the exception once and for all. It is axiomatic that burden on the accused to prove any fact can be discharged either through defence evidence or even through prosecution evidence by showing a preponderance of probability."
18. In view of ratio of the judgment in Lakhmi's case (supra), we find force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that it is open for the Court to examine if the case of a convict falls within an alternative exception. Harkanwal Singh and Mohinder Kaur, have set out a specific plea that few days prior to the occurrence, Jagwinder Singh-accused came to the house of Mohinder Kaur to express his grievance in respect of illicit relations of Baljit Kaur and Hardeep Singh. There is no denial that Hardeep Singh and Baljit Kaur were murdered inside the house of appellant-Lachhman Singh. It was suggested to the witnesses of the prosecution that Lachhman Singh found Baljit Kaur and Hardeep Singh in a compromising position, when he entered in his house for taking his afternoon meals. It was also suggested to PW Harkanwal Singh that when Lachhman Singh Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {16} used to be not present in his house, Hardeep Singh, deceased, used to visit the house of Lachhmn Singh to have intimacy with his wife,though the said suggestion was denied by the witness. These facts on record go to show that Lachhman Singh and his family members knew about the objectionable affair of Baljit Kaur and Hardeep Singh. One of the family members expressed his grievance and protest with regard to the said illegal affair,to the parents of Hardeep Singh. Despite the fact that the family of the appellant was unhappy with the conduct of Hardeep Singh, the appellant kept a restraint on himself and did not cause any harm to Hardeep Singh. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant ever caused any harm, torture or maltreatment to his wife despite his knowing that she is indulging in an extra marital affair with Hardeep Singh. On the date of occurrence, when Lachhman Singh found his wife, along with Hardeep Singh in his house, it was quite natural for him to get provoked. Prior to the occurrence, he merely suspected the fidelity of his wife. Earlier he had not seen his wife and her lover Hardeep Singh together in privacy. Further, there is lot of difference between hearing something to entertain suspicion and getting it confirmed on actual witnessing, what had been heard about earlier. No such facts are available on record that Lachhman Singh knew about the presence of Hardeep Singh in his house before he arrived there. It is not the case that the weapon used for causing injuries to the victims was brought by Lachhman Singh from outside his house before he arrived there. Lachhman Singh Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {17} never extended any threat to Hardeep Singh much less having caused harm to him in any manner whatsoever further shows that he had no pre-mediated mind to cause injuries to the deceased. Both the deceased sustained multiple injuries as shown in the post mortem report. Had Lachhman Singh arrived the place of occurrence with an intention to kill Hardeep Singh and Baljit Kaur, he could easily cause one or two fatal blows to execute his plan. In the absence of evidence that the accused brought the weapon of offence along with him from outside, the necessary inference is that he picked up that weapon from the spot when he noticed his wife in the company of Hardeep Singh, about whose illegal relationship the family had knowledge and even raised protest. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that it can be safely concluded from evidence that there exist circumstances leading to Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. Any ordinary man with normal senses would be outraged at such a scene. The learned trial Court has failed to advert to this aspect of the matter and as a result thereof, committed a grave error in failing to extend the benefit of Exception I to Section 300 IPC to accused Lachhman Singh.
19. In the result, we are inclined to afford to the appellant the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. As a natural corollary, we find the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC on two counts. Thus, we partly allow appeal of Lachhman Singh and set aside the judgment and order of sentence dated 1.4.2009 to the Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {18} extent of convicting and sentencing him for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The conviction of the appellant is altered for an offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. We sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each on two counts. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant if on bail, be taken into custody for undergoing the remaining part of imprisonment in accordance with the sentence imposed upon him now. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, for necessary amendment in the Jail Warrant.
20. With regard to the appeal filed by the State and the revision of the complainant, qua acquittal of Jagwinder Singh, the prosecution has failed to lead sufficient evidence much less cogent and convincing to prove that Jagwinder Singh was present inside the house of Lachhman Singh at the time of occurrence. Nobody had seen Jagwinder Singh entering that house soon before the occurrence or during the occurrence or his coming out of the said house immediately after the occurrence. As per FIR as well as in accordance with the statement of complainant and other evidence on record, Lachhman Singh is stated to have opened the door of his house on the asking of Ajaib Singh, husband of the Sarpanch of the village. The mere fact that Jagwinder Singh had an injury on his forehead and blood stains on his clothes, is not sufficient to convict him. We cannot loose sight of the fact that in a criminal case, the prosecution has an obligation to prove the culpability of the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {19} The standard of proof would certainly be high in cases involving harsher punishment. The Court has to draw a balance between rights of the victim and that of the accused. The minimum sentence for an offence of murder is life imprisonment. This is an undisputed position that Jagwinder Singh was noticed by the prosecution witnesses on the road and he had an injury on his forehead, and was carrying a child of Lachhman Singh in his lap. One of the defence witnesses namely, Param Bibi DW-2, has explained as to how Jagwinder Singh sustained injury on his forehead at the hands of Lachhman Singh and could get possession of the child through a small window which got opened because of the removal/falling of certain bricks. A perusal of one of the photographs, relied upon by the prosecution would show that some of loose bricks were lying in front of the house near the wall from which a hole was made due to falling of bricks. The accused has to create a balance of probability in his favour to get benefit of doubt. We would like to record that there are different principles of law to examine a judgment of conviction and acquittal. In case, two views are possible on reading of evidence, one which favours the accused, has to be accepted. In the circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court has not committed any error much less illegality in appreciating the evidence and to record acquittal of accused Jagwinder Singh.
21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no ground to accept the appeal and revision against acquittal of Jagwinder Singh. As a Crl. Appeal No. D-492-DB of 2009 {20} consequence, the appeal and revision preferred against acquittal are dismissed.
( REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE October 16, 2012 PARAMJIT