Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmail Singh vs The State Of Punjab And Others on 12 December, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: December 12, 2011.
Parties Name
Gurmail Singh
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
PRESENT: Mr. Vikrampreet Arora,
Advocate, for the applicant
Jasbir Singh, J.
JUDGMENT
This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment dated March 23, 2010, acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4 of the charges framed against them. Prayer is also to enhance sentence awarded to respondents No. 5 Darshan Singh.
Respondents No. 2 to 5 were made to face trial for commission of offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -2- Code for committing dowry death of Rajwant Kaur wife of respondent No. 5 Darshan Singh. It is not in dispute that marriage between Rajwant Kaur and Darshan Singh was solemnised on March 25, 2006, and she died an unnatural death on August 24, 2007, i.e., within 1- ½ year of the solemnisation of the marriage.
The process of law was set in motion on a statement Ex. PA made by Pw2 Gurmail Singh. The trial Court noted the following contents of his statement:
"That he is a labourer by profession. His son in law Gurdeep Singh settled the marriage of his daughter namely Rajwant Kaur with Darshan Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of village Neelpur. The marriage was solemnized on 25.3.2006. He gave sufficient dowry articles in the marriage. After about 10 days of the marriage, the in-laws of Rajwant Kaur started harassing her on account of insufficient dowry. They even did not allow Rajwant Kaur to meet her sister Jasvir Kaur. Rajwant Kaur stated these facts to him so many times, but he used to send her to her matrimonial home. After about three months of the marriage, the in-laws of Rajwant Kaur again taunted her on account of demand of dowry. Her husband Darshan Singh left her in the house of complainant. With the intervention of Panchayat, respectable and relatives, the matter was settled and his daughter was sent to her in-laws. Thereafter, his daughter was not sent to her parental home. About one month prior to the occurrence, Darshan Singh, son-in-law of the complainant, CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -3- brought Rajwant Kaur to complainant's house at village Badochhi Kallan and he went back even without taking tea. On fourth day thereafter, the complainant left his daughter in her matrimonial home after giving clothes etc. At that time Labh Kaur, mother-in-law of Rajwant Kaur taunted his daughter as to why she had not brought two suits for her and a blanket for father-in-law. However, the complainant left his daughter in her matrimonial home after making her understand. On that day i.e. 24.8.2007 at about 4.00/5.00 a.m. a telephonic message was received from his other son-in-law Gurdeep Singh that Rajwant Kaur had been killed. The complainant along with his son Amarinder Singh, son-in-law Gurdeep Singh and former Panch Baljit Singh along with other relatives and respectable reached house of Darshan Singh, his son-in-law, where Rajwant Kaur was lying with her face downwards and foam was coming out from her mouth. He apprehended that she was killed by her in-laws on account of bringing insufficient dowry or she took some poisonous substance due to harassment at the hands of her in-laws."
Statement of PW2 Gurmail Singh was recorded by S.I. Balkar Singh (PW7), on the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/2 was registered against respondents No. 2 to 5 on August 24, 2007. The Investigating Officer went to the spot, got prepared a rough site plan Ex. PC with correct marginal notes. He also recorded statements of the witnesses. The Investigating CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -4- Officer prepared inquest report Ex. PD of the dead body and sent it for post- mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Jasvinder Singh (PW6) on August 24, 2007. This witness noted froth coming out from nose and mouth. No external injury was found on the person of the deceased. Opinion regarding death was kept pending till receipt of report of viscera from the Chemical Examiner. After receipt of report Ex. PW6/B, the cause of death was declared aluminium phosphide poisoning. The private respondents - accused were arrested in the meantime and on completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The accused were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Section 304- B read with Section 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced eleven witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. The trial Judge, on appraisal of evidence, found respondent No. 5- Darshan Singh, husband of the deceased, guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him vide the judgment under challenge. However, respondents No. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence this appeal.
Counsel for the applicant has vehemently contended that the trial Court has misread evidence qua respondents No. 2 to 4 as their involvement in the crime was proved on record and they have been let off CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -5- without any justification. It is further contended that the deceased was being harassed for bringing less dowry by respondents No. 2 to 5 and it has been so said by Gurmail Singh (PW2), Sukhwinder Singh (PW3) and Jasbir Kaur (PW4). The testimony of the above witnesses and the medical evidence on record prove case of the prosecution against all the private - respondents accused. A prayer was made that leave to file an appeal be granted and judgment under challenge be set aside qua respondents No. 2 to 4 and they be convicted and sentenced as per charge framed against them.
After hearing counsel for the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that in view of finding given by the trial Judge and as per evidence on record, it is not possible for this Court to interfere at the instance of the applicant.
When acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4, it has been noted by the trial Court that there is no specific instance showing harassment of the deceased at the hands of respondents No. 2 to 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively. The defence led by the above respondents inspires confidence. DW1 Kharaiti Ram, Junior Assistant, Food and Supplies office, Rajpura, has proved entry Ex. DW1/A, on the basis of which ration card Ex. DW1/B was issued in the name of Darshan Singh and his wife Rajwant Kaur. Navin Sharma (DW2), a Draftsman, has proved site plan Ex. DW2/A showing accommodation in separate possession of respondents No. 2 to 4 and respondent No. 5. DW6 Jiwan Kumar had deposed that Karnail Singh was working with him and said Karnail Singh received a telephonic message on August 24, 2007, regarding death of his daughter-in-law. To the same effect is the statement CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -6- made by DW7 Balraj Sharan. It has also come on record that Karnail Singh as per nature of his work used to stay away from the house for days together. In the FIR, it is only stated that Labh Kaur, respondent - accused, had questioned her daughter-in-law (deceased) as to why she has not brought suit and blanket etc. for her. The trial Court has rightly noted that such an acquisition, only once, does not make Labh Kaur guilty of the offence with which she was charged. It has also come on record that respondents No. 2 to 4 were constituting a separate family unit and were living in separate accommodation from respondent No. 5 Darshan Singh and his wife. The finding given by the trial Court is perfectly justified and is as per evidence on record.
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 respondents No. 2 to
4. 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) CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -7- 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 CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -8- 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"
Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence on record by the trial Court. No case is made out for interference.
CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 844 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -9- So far as Darshan Singh is concerned, no view is being expressed qua him because as per information supplied, appeal filed by him is pending. Nothing expressed in this judgment shall prejudice the rights of either party in any other criminal litigation.
This application is also barred by limitation. No cogent explanation has been given for condonation of huge delay of 374 days in refiling the application.
Consequently, the applications fail and the same are dismissed.
( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Sabina) Judge December 12, 2011 DKC