Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbax Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 4 October, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
CRIMINAL MISC.-A-725 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: October 4, 2011.
Parties Name
Gurbax Singh
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
PRESENT: Mr. S.K.Sandhir,
Advocate, for the applicant
Jasbir Singh, J.
JUDGMENT
An FIR No. 118 dated November 28, 2006, was recorded against respondent No. 2, Devinder Singh, Baljit Kaur and Teja Singh for commission of offences under Sections 302, 307, 498-A/34 IPC on the allegation that they had committed murder of Amarjit Kaur wife of Devinder Singh by putting her on fire. After trial, vide judgment dated March 29, 2010, respondent No. 2 Surjit Kaur was acquitted of the charges framed CRIMINAL MISC.-A-725 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -2- against her. During trial, Baljit Kaur was declared proclaimed offender. However, the other two accused, named above, were convicted and sentenced for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence this application seeking permission to file an appeal. Regarding accusation of the prosecution, the trial Court has noted as under:
"Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 28.11.2006, one wireless message was received in Police Station Dehlon from Police Station Div. No. 3 Ludhiana to the effect that Amarjit Kaur wife of Devinder Singh, resident of village Seelon Khurd was admitted in CMC Hospital Ludhiana due to burn injuries. On this ASI Sukhbir Singh along with other police officials reached at CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, after getting a ruqa from Police Station Div. No. 3 Ludhiana. An application for obtaining opinion of doctor was moved for recording statement of injured. Doctor concerned declared injured Amarjit Kaur fit to make statement. Then ASI Sukhbir Singh reached the court of Ms. Rajni Chhokra learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana and moved application along with written opinion for recording statement of injured Amarjit Kaur. Thereafter Ms. Rajni Chhokra Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, reached the hospital and recorded statement of injured which was read over and explained to her. She admitted the same to be correct.
Her statement was also recorded by Investigating Officer to the effect that she got married with accused Davinder Singh in the CRIMINAL MISC.-A-725 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -3- year 1995. She had three brothers. After their marriage she had given birth to one daughter and a son who were then nine and seven years respectively. In her matrimonial home apart from her parents-in-law she had two sisters-in-law. One of her sisters-in-law got married one day prior to her marriage while younger sister-in-law was still unmarried. Till 1999, her parental family had been cultivating the land of her in-laws family. After that they stopped cultivating the said land. She was asked by her in-laws family to bring Rs. 2 Lacs from her parents for purchasing a tractor in order to cultivate the land. She then conveyed to her parental family about their demand who in turn advised her to tolerate all that as her children were to grow up soon. Her parental family had given to her one gas cylinder and one engine but still she was being harassed by her in-laws. Some time back, all the accused gave her beatings, as a result of which she remained admitted in the hospital for treatment. All this was conveyed to her parents but she was sent back again to her matrimonial home on the assurance given by her in-laws not to repeat such thing. Thereafter her husband had been planning to go abroad and on account of that her in-laws family had been harassing and pressurizing her to give him divorce so that he could go abroad on marriage basis. She was since not ready to give divorce to her husband and refused for that she was being harassed on that account continuously. On the last night all the accused namely CRIMINAL MISC.-A-725 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -4- Devinder Singh her husband, Balbir Kaur sister-in-law, Surjit Kaur mother-in-law and Teja Singh her father -in-law had given her beatings forcing her to agree to give divorce to her husband. Then at about 4.30 AM all the accused in connivance with each other poured kerosene on her and set her on fire with an intention to kill her. She also told about the incident to her brother Gurbax Singh in the hospital."
The alleged occurrence had taken place on November 28, 2006. Smt. Amarjit Kaur died on November 29, 2006. ASI Sukhbir Singh completed the investigation, in which respondent No. 2 Surjit Kaur was found innocent and her name was put in column No. 2 in the final report. However, during trial, by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., she was summoned to face trial. On the basis of above accusation, all the three accused were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced as many as ten witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them. They pleaded innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Court on analysis of the evidence found respondent No. 2 Surjit Kaur innocent and accordingly acquitted her of the charges framed against her, whereas the other two accused were convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in earlier part of this order. Hence this CRIMINAL MISC.-A-725 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -5- application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission to file appeal against the impugned judgment acquitting respondent No. 2.
After hearing counsel for the applicant, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment of acquittal qua respondent No. 2. As per statement made by the deceased, her in-laws were maltreating her on account of bringing less dowry. On November 28, 2006, all the accused after pouring kerosene oil,on her, put her on fire. It is an admitted fact that during investigation, respondent No. 2 was found innocent and her name was put in column No. 2 of the final report. The trial Court on analysis of deposition made by DW5 Dr. S.K.Sharma, who had treated Surjit Kaur, respondent No.2, for her partial paralysis of right side doubted her participation in the alleged crime. The Court below has also relied upon the statement made by DW4 Harmanjot Kaur, daughter of the deceased, who had stated that at the relevant night, she was sleeping with her grand parents. This Court feels that the opinion arrived at by the Court below 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 respondent No.2. 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 CRIMINAL MISC.-A-725 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -6- 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, (Criminal Appeal No. 1719 of 2011), decided on September 5, 2011, 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.
CRIMINAL MISC.-A-725 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -7- 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 CRIMINAL MISC.-A-725 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -8- placed. "
Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court or any other factual error in the judgment, which may necessitate any interference by this Court. The opinion expressed by the trial Court was possible in view of evidence on record.
This application is also barred by limitation. No cogent reasons have been explained for condonation of delay.
In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed.
( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Sabina) Judge October 04, 2011 DKC