Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Jaswinder Singh And Another on 17 November, 2010
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 302 of 2005
Date of decision: November 17, 2010
Rakesh Kumar
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Jaswinder Singh and another
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate and
Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondent No.1.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
A.N. Jindal, J
This petition filed by the private complainant namely Rakesh
Kumar against the order of acquittal dated 11.10.2004 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Ambala, whereby the accused- respondent No.1 (herein
referred as, 'the respondent') was acquitted of the charges framed against
him under Sections 302/392 IPC.
The complainant Rakesh Kumar (herein referred as, 'the
complainant') was posted as teacher in High School in Punjab and his wife
Parveen Kumari was also employed as teacher. The complainant's father
Bhup Chand was living with his brother Rajesh Kumar while his mother
Kaushal Sharma had been residing with him since 1997. On 21.4.2003, at
about 7.00 a.m. the children of the complainant had gone to school,
whereas, he and his wife had also gone to attend their duties while leaving
their mother Kaushal Sharma alone in the house. At about 1.30 p.m. the
complainant received a message that his mother was in a serious condition,
where upon he took his wife Parveen Kumari from her school, went to the
house and spotted that his mother was lying in the pool of blood in front of
the kitchen and she had already expired. On the aforesaid statement Ex.PB
made by him, the case was registered. SI Subhash Chand investigated the
case. On completion of the investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
was presented in the court.
The accused was charged under Sections 302/392 IPC, to
which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.
Criminal Revision No. 302 of 2005 -2-
***
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in all. Ultimately, the trial resulted into acquittal.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
The case hinges on circumstantial evidence as neither the direct evidence was collected nor examined in order to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. The circumstantial evidence is in the nature of following documents :
1. Recovery of the iron rod and bangles;
2. Report of the Finger Print Expert on the glasses lying in the house nearby the dead body with the specimen finger prints; and
3. recovery of the ear rings.
The aforesaid circumstantial evidence to my mind is hardly sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. No doubt, the crime is very heinous in nature. In case the sentence of life imprisonment is to be awarded to the person held guilty, the courts insist upon collecting some evidence, may be direct or circumstantial which may complete the chain unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has not led any direct evidence in order to connect the accused with the crime. The court should not move by sentiments or by emotions. Such things are alien to the judicial conscience and fate of the case is governed by the evidence. Similar observations were made in case Smt. Shakuntla. v. The State 1984 (1) C.L.R. 433.
There is no dispute with the legal proposition that if the specimen finger prints of the accused are found identical with the chance finger prints on the articles lying nearby the dead body or over the body then the court could find some basis to record conviction against the accused. Richhpal Singh (PW5) Finger Print Expert allegedly had inspected the spot on 21.4.2003 and had developed the finger prints on the bottle and the glasses which were found lying at the spot with the help of powder and then took the snaps Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and thereafter he prepared his report Ex.PC at the spot. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PX/2, one of the chance print taken by the Finger Print Expert was found to be identical with the right thumb impression of Jaswant Singh taken by Criminal Revision No. 302 of 2005 -3- *** the police. Now question arises, whether these bottle and glasses were found near the scene of occurrence and whether these utensils were taken into possession by the police. If it is not so established then chances of procuring the chance finger prints could not be ruled out. The initial investigation was conducted by SI Subhash Chander on 21.4.1993 at 2.00 p.m. He had prepared the inquest report Ex.PH, but there is nothing about the presence of the glasses and bottle nearby the body in the said report. Though he deposed in the court that he called the Finger Print Expert at the spot but he did not depose if the Finger Print Expert had actually come at the spot. He also did not depose a word about the presence of plastic bottle and glasses lying at the spot. In the inquest report, the proceedings done by this witness at the spot had been noted down in serial order. As per that record, Vipan photographer had reached the spot and had taken the photographs of the dead body from different angles but the Investigating Officer has not stated that the Finger Print Expert came and took any snaps of the chance finger prints or preserved those finger prints from the articles lying at the spot.
Under these circumstances, chances of procuring of such chance finger print in order to plug the holes in the prosecution version cannot be ruled out. Again, Rakesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar (PW12) and (PW7) respectively also remained present at the spot during investigation but none of them had uttered a word that Finger Print Expert had arrived at the spot and had collected the chance finger prints on the bottle and glasses.
No other evidence worth the name has been led by the prosecution in order to connect the accused with the commission of crime. It is settled by now that in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, even if two views are possible then the view favourable to the accused could be accepted.
In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, this revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
November 17, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge