Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 January, 2013
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and
CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and
CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012
Date of decision : 24.1.2013
Gurjant Singh ........Applicant-appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
Present:- Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant
---
Jasbir Singh, J.
CRM No. 60289 of 2012 After hearing counsel for the applicant, application is allowed. Delay of 38 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 Respondent No.2 is sister-in-law of the applicant (brother's wife). The applicant is accusing her of killing his son, namely, Sewak Singh by administering poison to him. Sewak Singh died on 10.5.2011. His dead body was cremated without getting any post mortem done. Statement to the police, levelling serious allegations against respondent No.2, was made on 14.6.2011. After trial, respondent No.2 was acquitted.
The applicant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 7.6.2012. CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -2- As per case of the prosecution, applicant Gurjant Singh PW-1 met SI Karamjit Singh on 14.6.2011, when he was on patrol duty in the area of village Nandgarh and got recorded his statement.
The trial Judge has noted the following facts regarding case of the prosecution :-
"That he is resident of village Jangirana and is an agriculturist by profession. They are two brothers and a sister. He has been married with Palo Kaur daughter of Joginder Singh, resident of village Bajak, for the last about eleven years. His brother Labh Sigh is married with Veerpal Kaur daughter of Gurcharan Singh, resident of village Deon for the last about 12-13 years. There used to remain a dispute between his brother Labh Singh and his wife Veerpal Kaur, as Veerpal Kaur was insisting to live separately. Veerpal Kaur often used to quarrel with them. On 10.5.2011, when his son, namely, Sewak Singh came from the school, Veerpal Kaur served a glass of lemon drink to him and after consuming the same Sewak Singh became unconscious and felt pain in his stomach and started vomiting. Accordingly, doctor was called, who administered some medicines to Sewak Singh. When the condition of Sewak Singh did not improve, he and his brother Labh Singh were about to take Sewak Singh to a hospital at Gidderbaha for treatment and it was about 7.00-7.15 A.M., Veerpal Kaur brought a glass of Lassi from the kitchen after stirring something in the glass with a spoon and gave the same to Sewak Singh, on consuming the same Sewak Singh felt bad. On his asking, Sewak Singh told them that there was something bitter in the Lassi. When they asked about the same from Veerpal kaur, she replied that there was nothing, but only black pepper in the Lassi. Thereafter, they took Sewak Singh to the hospital on the scooter. However, on the CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -3- way the condition of Sewak Singh started deteriorating and became unconscious. The doctor of Bikaner Hospital, Gidderbaha declared Sewak Singh brought dead. Accordingly, they brought the dead body of Sewak Singh to their village and cremated the same. They are of the firm belief that Veerpal Kaur in order to create dispute between the two brothers, had administered some poisonous substance to Sewak Singh by putting the same in the lemon drink and Lassi. On the next day of the cremation, when they were collecting mortal remains of Sewak Singh, Veerpal Kaur asked them to pick up the whole ash. Accordingly, they put the same in a gunny bag and at the time of immersing mortal remains of Sewak Singh, Veerpal Kaur managed to throw the ash in the canal also. On return to their house, Veerpal Kaur put the clothes of Sewak Singh, which were smeared with vomiting, on fire in their presence. These acts of Veerpal Kaur affirmed their suspicion. On the day of Bhog ceremony, when they were disclosing their suspicion to their relatives, Veerpal Kaur put herself on the cot on the pretext of head-ach. He further got it recorded that his wife Smt. Palo Kaur and Harchand Singh told them that Veerpal Kaur was stating that since Sewak Singh has been murdered and as such now they would live separately from each other."
By stating as above, suspicion was raised against respondent No.2 that she had killed Sewak Singh in the manner as noted above. The Investigating Officer SI Karamjit Singh PW-8, went to the place of occurrence, prepared rough site plan with correct marginal notes. From cremation ground, he lifted ashes of burnt body of Sewak Singh, which was taken into possession against a recovery memo. Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 17.6.2011. As per Chemical Examiner's Report, death had CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -4- occurred due to Chloro Compound Poison, a group of Insecticides. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, final report was put in court. Copies of the documents were supplied to the respondent/accused as per norms. Case was committed to the competent Court for trial on 23.9.2011. The respondent/accused was charge sheeted to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 9 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case.
On conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, statement of the respondent/accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein she denied the allegations levelled against her, pleaded innocence and false implication. She led no evidence in defence.
The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence, found case of the prosecution doubtful, benefit of which was given to the respondent/ accused by ordering her acquittal. The trial Judge has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to explain an inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police. Sewak Singh died on 11.5.2011. The matter was reported to the police only on 14.6.2011. In that regard, it was observed as under :-
"From the statements of these trio, it emerges out that deceased Sewak Singh breathed his last on 11.5.2011, but the First Information Report was lodged in this case on 14.6.2011, which has not been explained by the prosecution or by any of its witnesses. It is own case of none else but Gurjant Singh PW-1, father of deceased Sewak Singh, that accused served lemon water to Sewak Singh deceased and she CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -5- put something in that lemon water and Sewak Singh became ill due to consumption of that lemon water. It shows that parents of the deceased came to know that their son became ill due to consumption of that lemon water. It is also the case of the prosecution witnesses that on the next day when their son did not recover, accused Veerpal Kaur again gave a glass of Lassi with some poisonous substance and on taking that glass of Lassi, Sewak Singh told them that it was bitter in taste and after consuming Lassi, Sewak Singh started vomiting and loose motions and thereafter, he breathed his last. Not only this, Smt. Palo wife of Gurjant Singh and mother of deceased Sewak Singh, who while stepping into the witness box as PW- 7, has categorically admitted in her cross examination that soon after the death of her son, they believed that Veerpal Kaur has given poison to her son. They informed the Panchayat regarding giving of poison by Veerpal Kaur to her son on the next day of death of her son. Panchayat took the search of the room of Veerpal Kaur and found five tins of poisonous substances. Room of Veerpal Kaur was searched on the next day of death of her son. In the next breath, she has stated that the Panchayat did not ask Veerpal Kaur anything. It is highly improbable that Panchayat did not question Veerpal Kaur on that score. No Member Panchayat has been examined by the prosecution to prove the fact that the parents of the deceased or anybody else informed the Panchayat regarding giving of poison by Veerpal Kaur to Sewak Singh. Even Gurjant Singh, father of deceased Sewak Singh, while stepping into the witness box as PW-1 has categorically stated in his cross examination that they found tablets of sulphas there. They also found other poisonous substances and the said poisonous substances were given to the police. The poisonous substances were handed over to the CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -6- police on the same day through Sarpanch. After about 7-8 days of Bhog ceremony of his son, the police made a search of the house of the accused. However, one fails to understand, if parents came to know about the act and mischief of Veerpal Kaur accused, why they did not report the matter to the police or any other respectable person? Why did they keep mum for a long period or more than 33 days? Why they did not make hue and cry for such a long period? Why they did not get the case registered against the accused after the death of their son? No plausible explanation or justification is forth coming either from the side of the prosecution or its witnesses."
It has been stated by the prosecution witnesses that suspicion was raised against the respondent/accused immediately after death of Sewak Singh. On search of her room, poisonous substance was also recovered, which was handed over to the police. If that was so, there is no explanation on record, as to why FIR was not recorded immediately after death of Sewak Singh. It was stated by parents of the deceased that poisonous substance was forcibly administered to the deceased by the accused. In their pursuance, the trial Judge, by noting above facts, has rightly disbelieved statements, made by the parents of the deceased, after giving good reasons in Paras No.26 and 27 of the judgment under challenge.
It is case of the prosecution that from the very beginning, the respondent-accused was a suspect. If that was so, why action was not taken after getting the post mortem of Sewak Singh done. Why dead body was allowed to be cremated, that too, at the instance of respondent/ accused? Even the clothes of the deceased were burnt at her instance. At CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -7- no time, doctor who examined the deceased, was intimated that any poison was administered to the deceased. The prosecution has also failed to bring any motive on the part of the respondent-accused, to commit the crime.
The trial Judge has noticed that defence version taken by respondent/accused was probable. In that regard, it was said as under :-
"31. Now a word about defence needs to be recorded. Accused has come forward with the plea that she is innocent. She has been falsely implicated in this case. Her husband Labh Singh wanted to get rid of her and due to that reason he used to quarrel with her. Her husband's brother's son, namely, Sewak Singh has died on 11.5.2011 due to diarrhea disease. On 13.6.2011, police picked up her father at Police Station, Sangat and under threat, she was asked to give divorce to Labh Singh. On 13.6.2011, she came to District Courts, Bathinda and prepared the document for obtaining divorce by way of mutual consent under threat of SI Rachhpal Singh. In the meantime, the Panchayat of their village came on knowing the high handed-ness of the police and thereafter, her husband, his brother Gurjant Singh and his father Sohan Singh left the Court premises after leaving behind the affidavit and divorce petition prepared by them. Apprehending that her father would lodge a report against SI Racchhpal Singh, he registered this false case against her. Her husband Labh Singh has also suffered a statement in this Court in a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is a false statement.
32. The sequence of events go a long way to show that the defence version put forth by the accused is more probable than the prosecution version. From the perusal of the file, it transpires that Labh Singh, husband of accused Veerpal Kaur, while stepping into the witness box as PW-2, has categorically CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -8- admitted it to be correct that on 13.6.2011 at the time of refusal of giving divorce, accused moved an application against them, for giving divorce by putting force on her. When they came to know about the filing of this application, they lodged the present case against the accused. This witness has also admitted it to be correct that on 13.6.2011 he along with his brother, father, Sarpanch Hari Singh and accused Veerpal Kaur came to Bathinda and they got prepared the documents of divorce. He identified his signatures on affidavit Ex.DA and also admitted his signatures on petition Ex. DB. From the perusal of affidavit Ex. DA and petition Ex.DB, it transpires that Labh Singh, husband of accused Veerpal Kaur, wanted to get rid of his wife Veerapl Kaur by filing a mutual divorce petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and when she did not agree to do so, they lodged FIR on 14.6.2011 against the accused.
33. Not only this, the complainant party again tried to get rid of Veerpal Kaur accused by filing a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hidnu Marriage Act on 19.7.2011, Ex. DD, during the pendency of this case. However, Veerpal Kaur accused suffered a statement to the effect that earlier she suffered statement before this Court Ex. DC under pressure of the police, as she was in custody at that time and now she does not want to give divorce to her husband Labh Singh and accordingly she withdrew the joint petition. Thus keeping in view all these facts and circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that Labh Singh, husband of accused Veerpal Kaur, intended to get rid of accused Veerpal Kaur and he wanted divorce from her by hook and crook and in order to secure divorce from her, they falsely implicated the accused in this case."
This Court feels that the opinion expressed by the trial Court CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -9- is perfectly justified and as per evidence on record.
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."
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 CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -10- 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 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."
CRM No. 60289 of 2012 in/and CRM-A No. 817-MA of 2012 -11- 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 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 applicant-appellant has failed to show any error in law on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Inderjit Singh) Judge 24.1.2013 Ashwani