Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagvir Singh @ Jagsir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 March, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-A No. 115-MA of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision:25.3.2013
Jagvir Singh @ Jagsir Singh
....... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.B.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate,
for the applicant-appellant.
****
SABINA, J.
Respondents No.2 and 3 had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 306/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR No.107 dated 12.9.2007 registered at police station Moonak.
The trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 20.10.2012 ordered the acquittal of respondents No.2 and 3 of the charge framed against them. Hence, the application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) has been filed by the applicant with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 20.10.2012.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves to be dismissed.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Suraj Bhan had committed suicide on 12.6.2007 due to highhandedness of the commission agent-respondent No.2. The deceased was under the debt of respondents No.2. Respondent No.2 wanted the deceased to transfer his land in favour of respondent No.2 to clear the said debt. After the death of Suraj Bhan, respondent No.2 was harassing the family of the applicant qua dire consequences.
Learned trial Court, while acquitting respondents No.2 and 3 of the charge framed against them, held that no reliance could be placed on the suicide note Ex.PW-3/A alleged to have been executed by the deceased. The said note was allegedly recovered after two months of the death of deceased Suraj Bhan. The said note was not signed by anybody and was undated. Further there was no postmortem examination report to establish the cause of death of deceased Suraj Bhan. Hence, there was no material before the Court to come to a conclusion that the deceased had died an un- natural death. The family members of the deceased had not suspected any foul play with regard to the death of Suraj Bhan and consequently, the dead body was cremated without any postmortem examination. Further the trial Court has noticed that as per the death certificate, proved on record, the reason of death in the said certificate was mentioned as heart attack. In these circumstances, learned trial Court rightly held that no reliance could be placed on the suicide note Ex.PW-3/A. Further loan was advanced to Suraj Bhan by the bank after he complied with all the formalities. Suraj Bhan had paid the instalments of the tractor loan and had not made any complaint to the bank authorities with regard to the advancement of tractor loan to him. So far as the execution of agreement to sell in question by Suraj Bhan in favour of the accused was concerned, the matter was pending before the trial Court. Hence, the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that respondents No.2 and 3 were liable to be acquitted of the charge framed against them.
Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any mis-reading of evidence on record by the trial Court which would warrant interference by this 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 will 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 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. 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"
Hence, no ground is made out to grant leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE March 25, 2013 anita