Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 January, 2013
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 9.1.2013
Jatinder Singh
... Applicant
Versus
State of Punjab and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the applicant.
Jasbir Singh, Judge The applicant has filed this application under Section 378(4) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 26.5.2012 to the extent of recording acquittal in favour of respondents No. 2 to 4. It is necessary to mention here that vide above judgment, Surinder Singh son of respondent No.3 & 4 and brother of respondent No.2 was convicted for commission of offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and sentenced accordingly. It is necessary to mention here that final report was put in Court against respondent No.2 and his brother Surinder Singh. Respondents No.3 and 4 were summoned to face trial when an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
It was an allegation against all the accused that they, in furtherance of their common intention, had administered some Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 2 poisonous substance to Rupinderjit Kaur wife of Surinder Singh on 26.1.2011. She died on 27.1.2011. It is on record that process of law was started on a statement (Ex.P1) made by applicant-Jatinder Singh (brother of deceased Rupinderjit Kaur), on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P24) bearing No. 8 was registered against all the accused on 27.1.2011.
The trial Judge has noted the following facts regarding case of the prosecution from the statement of applicant-Jatinder Singh (PW.1):-
"I am resident of above mentioned address and am working in the office of SDM Mohali in "Fard Kendar, Computer"
(computerized document centre). We are four brothers and sisters. The eldest is my sister Rupinderjit Kaur, who was married to Surinder Singh son of Manjit Singh resident of Khant about 4 years back as per rights and ceremonies and my parents had given dowry to Rupinderjit Kaur at the time of marriage as per their means, but the in-laws of my sister started harassing my sister shortly after marriage in order to press upon their demands of more dowry. In the year 2009, my sister Rupinderjit Kaur was blessed with a daughter and after birth of daughter my sister's husband namely Surinder Singh, father-in-law Manjit Singh, her "Deor" (brother-in-law) Sohan Singh, her "Deorani" (sister-in-law) Balwinder Kaur, her "Jeth" (brother-in-law) and her mother-in-law Shela Devi started beating my daughter and told her that they have to build a house on their plot situated at Kharar and asked her to Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 3 bring an amount of Rs.Two Lacs for the same. My sister told us about the same several times over phone. We went to the matrimonial village of my sister and reasoned out with her in- laws family and told them that we are a poor family and are unable to give such an amount. However, the family of in-laws of my sister Rupinderjit Kaur kept on harassing and maltreating her. The aforesaid accused also gave beating to my sister Rupinderjit Kaur on the occasion of Lohri Festival. My sister had told us about the same telephonically and my sister had further told me that her in-laws' family is harassing and maltreating her more as she had given birth to a daughter though her in-laws' wanted a son. On 26.1.2011 my "Jija" (brother-in-law) namely Surinder Singh rang up my father and told him that his daughter Rupinderjit Kaur had consumed something poisonous and that they have brought her to kakkar Hospital, Morinder (sic) and asked him to reach there immediately. I alongwith my father and brother Sukhjinder Singh reached Kakkar Hospital, Morinda and where on account of serious condition of my sister, the Doctor referred her to Indus Hospital, Phase I, Mohali. We arranged for a private conveyance and took my sister Rupinderjit Kaur to Indus Hospital, Phase I, Mohali and where my sister has expired today i.e. 27.1.2011 in the morning. My sister Rupinderjit Kaur has been harassed and maltreated by her husband Surinder Singh, father-in-law Manjit Singh, Mother-in- Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 4 law Sheela Devi, Deor (brother-in-law) Sohan Singh, Jeth (brother-in-law) Kala and Deorani (sister-in-law) Balwinder Kaur, the aforesaid accused, in order to press upon their demands of dowry and money and on account of the fact that she has given birth to a daughter. My sister Rupinderjit Kaur being fed up with harassment and maltreatment at the hands of aforesaid accused had consumed something poisonous and has ended her life."
Statement of the complainant was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Surinder Singh. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of the witnesses and also got prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Surinder Singh accused was arrested on 26.4.2011. Respondent No.2-Harwinder Singh alias Kala was arrested on 15.6.2011, respondents No.3-Manjit Singh and No.4-Sella Devi alias Sheela Rani were arrested on 27.4.2011.
On completion of the investigation, final report was presented in Court against Surinder Singh and respondent No.2 only. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused, as per norms. Their case was committed to the competent Court for trial vide order dated 17.8.2011. Respondents No.3 and 4 were summoned to face trial, by invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The accused were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution produced 12 witnesses and also brought documentary evidence, to prove its case. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, separate statements of all the accused were got Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 5 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire prosecution evidence was put to them which they denied, claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. It was specifically stated by Surinder Singh accused that his wife was mentally ill and she had died because of such illness. Respondents No.2 to 4 took up a stand that they were not present when marriage was solemnized between Surinder Singh and Rupinderjit Kaur, deceased, in the year 2009. It was further stated that because of ill behaviour of Surinder Singh, he was disowned by his father in the year 2004. It was further stated that they were separate in mess and residence from Surinder Singh and his wife. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Judge, on appraisal of evidence, found respondents No.2 to 4 not guilty and accordingly they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. It was specifically noticed that so far as respondents No.2 to 4 are concerned, allegations against them regarding demand of dowry etc. are not specific. In that regard, it was observed as under:-
"that the complainant has made sweeping allegations against all the members of family of husband of deceased without making any distinction. In this regards a reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court reported as 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 783 Kanwal Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana, wherein it was held that:
"In a case where the bride either commits suicide or is murdered by her in-law's family, the tempers Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 6 run high. So much so that attempt is made to rope in the entire family of the husband of the victim. Almost all the family members of the husband are attributed one role or the other so as to implicate them, although they may not have done anything in the entire occurrence. Under these circumstances, duty is cast upon the Court to sift the grain from the chaff and find out if some of the accused have been falsely roped. The facts and circumstances of the present case also point towards the false implication of accused Kanwal Singh, Jaibir, Bhateri and Reena. As has been held above, their part and participation in the occurrence was highly doubtful. Three out of them were also able to prove their respective plea of alibi. As a measure of abundant caution we extent the benefit of doubt to the four accused namely, Kanwal Singh, Jaibeer, Bhateri and Reena, while at the same time we find sufficient evidence to connect Anand Singh accused with the commission of the crime."
33. The above referred judgment has been relied upon in another judgment reported as 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 575 in case Joginder Singh and others vs. The State of Haryana, wherein Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction of parents of husband of deceased upon finding it to be a case of general Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 7 allegations only while the conviction of the husband in respect of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC was maintained.
34. In the present case, I find that there are general allegations against the accused. Additionally there is some evidence to show that all the accused were not even staying together. Though ration card forms Ex.D-11, Ex.D-12 and Ex.D-13 do show that separate ration cards were applied for by Manjit Singh and his two sons Surinder Singh and Sohan Singh, but it is quite common that separate ration cards are got issued so as to apply for independent Gas cylinder connection. From perusal of ration card form (Ex.D-13) of Manjit Singh, it is apparent that a Gas cylinder connection had been issued to Manjit Singh. However the ration card forms of his sons (Ex.D-11 & Ex.D-12) do not reflect that they have been issued gas connections and which could be indicative of the reason as to why the sons chose to apply for independent ration cards. However the clinching evidence in this regards is in the shape of issue dated 17.2.2004 of Newspaper "Desh Sewak" wherein a public notice was got published by Manjit Singh to the effect that he disowns his son Harvinder Singh. The said notice was published even prior to marriage of the deceased and in these circumstances, it can safely be said that Harwinder Singh was residing separately from his parents and brothers. In any case in view of judgment 2006(3) RCR Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 8 (Criminal) 783 (supra) it will not be safe to rely upon sweeping allegations of the complainant against entire family of husband of the deceased. Consequently, the accused other than the husband of deceased deserve to be given benefit of doubt." It was also observed that respondents No.2 to 4 were separate in mess and residence from Surinder Singh and his family. They had separate ration cards and separate gas cylinder connection. It has also come on record that by giving notice in a newspaper on 17.2.2004, Manjit Singh had disowned his son. To the contrary, sufficient evidence was found against Surinder Singh, husband of the deceased and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced vide judgment under challenge.
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 Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 9 different view, could not be a reason calling for interference."
Similarly, in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479, decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"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."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused.
This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the
judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably
Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 10
erroneous or a view which could not have been
taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping
in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this
Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of
acquittal.
8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for."
Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:-
"10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 (O&M) 11 against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience."
Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Judge which may necessitate interference by this Court.
This application is also barred by 120 days in filing. No ground is made out to condone the delay in filing the application as well.
Hence, both the applications viz. Criminal Misc. No. A-937-MA of 2012 and Criminal Misc. No. 70834 of 2012 are dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Inderjit Singh) Judge January 9, 2013 "DK"