Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Ravinder And Ors. on 30 January, 2008
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. The State and the complainant are aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents of the charge under Sections 302/34 IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 7.11.1996 at 11-30 A.M., Brijesh deceased alongwith his brother Rakesh Dahiya (PW-13) were in the office of their father Mohinder Singh Dahiya, who was employed as Secretary, Red Cross. Brijesh left from there in a car after informing Rakesh that he was going to see Ravinder. Rakesh noticed Brijesh talking with Rameshwar. Rakesh received telephonic message at 12-15 P.M. from Shri O.P. Chaudhary, former Vice Chancellor, M.D. University, Rohtak, who was related to the deceased that Brijesh was lying in hospital in injured condition. Rakesh went to the hospital at 2-20 P.M. and was told that Brijesh had died. His statement (Ex.PD) was recorded by the Inspector Ram Kishan, (PW-17), who conducted part of the investigation while the part of investigation was done by Inspector Prem Singh (PW-18). Ravinder accused was represented by Jiwan Singh, Sarpanch (PW-14) before Prem Singh. On disclosure statement of Ravinder accused, a revolver, five cartridges, licence of revolver, one key and a motorcycle were recovered. PW-14 Jiwan Singh deposed about extra judicial confession made by Ravinder accused before him. PW-15 Rameshwar deposed about having seen Ravinder accused firing a shot at the deceased. He further deposed that Sandeep stopped the car of Brijesh and gave him a threat to teach a lesson for quarreling in the college. His statement was recorded by the SHO of the Police Station on the same day.
3. The prosecution also examined Dr. O.P. Gujeria (PW-1), who conducted post-mortem examination and found bullet and seven injuries. Six of the injuries are fire-arm injuries on vital parts.
4. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and led defence evidence about election rivalry in college elections.
5. The trial Court did not find the evidence led by the prosecution to be satisfactory, inter-alia, for the following reasons:
(i) Version given by eyewitness Rameshwar was not reliable as his statement (Ex.DF) was recorded by the police on 7.11.1996, but in a copy of report dated 12.11.1996 recorded by Inspector Ram Kishan (Ex.DG/1), it was stated that the police had not been able to find out the clue of the murder. Thus, recording of his statement on 7.11.1996 was doubtful. The witness was not a reliable one. He was facing several criminal cases. The accused was arrested on 23.11.1996 and they were produced by PW-14 Jiwan Singh. If their involvement was known earlier, they would have been arrested earlier.
(ii) PW-18 Prem Singh, Inspector admitted that when investigation was given to him on 17.11.1996, there was no clue about the murder and it was on account of that that special investigation team was constituted vide order (Ex.DG/2);
(iii) Version of extra judicial confession given by Jiwan Singh (PW-14) was not reliable. He was related to the deceased and the accused would not have reposed confidence in him.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the State and perused the record.
7. We are unable to hold that the view taken by the trial Court that PW-15 Rameshwar could not be relied upon as an eyewitness as for several days, thereafter, the case was treated as without any clue leading to constitution of a special investigation team and if the said evidence is excluded from consideration, the remaining evidence was not enough to convict the accused.
8. Thus the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and is not liable to be interfered with.
9. 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. Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat .
10. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, the criminal appeals as well as criminal revision are dismissed.