Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh vs Milkha Singh And Others on 29 January, 2013
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M)
Date of decision : 29.1.2013
Mandeep Singh ........Applicant-appellant
Vs.
Milkha Singh and others .......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
Present:- Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chowdhary, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Pritam Singh Baath, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant
---
Jasbir Singh, J.
The marriage of Angrej Singh was solemnized on 29.4.2007 with Karamjit Kaur, sister of the applicant/complainant. Karamjit Kaur died on 17.3.2008. For her murder, an FIR was recorded against her husband; namely, Angrej Singh. He was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 15.12.2011. Against respondents No.1 to 6, a criminal complaint was filed alleging that they have been harassing the deceased for bringing less dowry and they were in conspiracy with Angrej Singh, to kill her. After that they were acquitted by the trial Court on 15.12.2011.
The applicant/complainant has filed this application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against the above judgment vide which the respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Angrej Singh was arrayed as a respondent, however, on account of his conviction, his name was ordered to be CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M) -2- removed from the array of the parties vide order dated 20.9.2012. Respondents No. 3 and 4 are the brothers and respondents No.5 and 6 are the father and mother respectively of Angrej Singh, above named.
The trial Judge has noted following facts regarding the case of the complainant from his complaint :-
"That his sister, Karamjit Kaur, was married with Angrej Singh on 29.4.2007. Karamjit Kaur happened to be polio afflicted, so was her husband Angrej Singh. At the time of marriage, a new motor cycle, make Hero Honda Glamour, was purchased from Sardar Motors, Chogawan, in the name of Angrej Singh and had been handed over to Angrej Singh in form of Istri Dhan of Karamjit Kaur. Some more Istri Dhan articles of Karamjit Kaur were entrusted to Avtar Singh, Manjit Kaur, Ajmer Singh @ Lali, Shamsher Singh @ Bau. After the marriage, accused Angrej Singh, Avtar Singh, Manjit Kaur, Ajmer Singh @ Lali and Shamshger Singh @ Bau, started physically and mentally torturing Karamjit Kaur for having brought less dowry and they all, in furtherance of their common intention, used to give beatings to Karamjit Kaur, who, used to inform complainant and his father Amrik Singh in that regard. Complainant Mandeep Singh, Amrik Singh and others used to go to house of aforesaid accused, so as to make them understand that they should not maltreat and misbehave with Karamjit Kaur, but they did not mend their ways and they continued misbehaving and maltreating Karamjit Kaur and giving beatings to her.
3. That on 17.3.2008, Sharanjit Singh, a relative of complainant Mandeep Singh, had gone to the matrimonial home of Karamjit Kaur at village Kallewal in the afternoon and at that time, accused Angrej Singh, Avtar Singh, Manjit Kaur, Ajmer Singh @ Lali and Shamsher Singh @ Bau, were CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M) -3- present there. All of them were quarreling with Karamjit Kaur and were raising demand of car from her, and Karamjit Kaur had told her tale of woes to Sharanjit Singh, stating that it was a daily affair for her. Sharanjit Singh had told Karamjit Kaur that if accused were not satisfied with the other articles given in dowry, then, they would not be satisfied even if a car was given to them. Then Sharanjit Singh went to meet his cousin sister at village Mohawa and again in the evening at about 6 PM, he came to matrimonial home of Karamjit Kaur to find out as to whether the situation was normal there in view of the quarrel which had taken place in the morning. At that time, Sharanjit Singh found accused Milkha Singh and Angrej Singh outside the house, whereas, Ajmer Singh, Shamsher Singh, were inside the house and they informed Sharanjit Singh that Karamjit Kaur was suddenly having a bout of vomiting and she was being taken to a hospital at Attari and that she was changing her clothes."
After recording preliminary evidence, the above respondents were summoned to face trial. On their appearance, copies of the documents were supplied to them. Their case was committed to the competent Court for trial vide order dated 11.11.2010. The respondents/ accused were charge sheeted for commission of offences under Sections 120B, 304B IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. They 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, separate statements of the respondents/accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, the incriminating evidence appearing against them, was put to them which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M) -4- also led evidence in defence.
The trial Judge, on appraisal of evidence, found the respondents/accused not guilty and accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. As per record, Karamjit Kaur was murdered on 17.3.2008, the FIR was recorded qua the above incident for the first time on 19.3.2008. Father of the deceased levelled allegations against the respondents/accused in this case qua their involvement in the above crime. The matter was investigated from that angle also. Angrej Singh, husband of the deceased, was arrested. He suffered a disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of offending material and the weapon of offence (knife). Grievance of the complainant party was mainly against Angrej Singh. The present complaint was filed on 27.5.2008 wherein altogether a new version was introduced qua death of Karamjit Kaur.
The trial Judge rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution/complainant has failed to explain delay in filing the complaint. As per the case of the complainant himself, he came to know about detail of the facts under which offence was committed, on 22/23.3.2008 from Sharanjit Singh, PW, however, no written complaint was made to the higher police officials levelling the allegations, which was levelled in the complaint filed on 27.5.2008.
The trial Judge has also noted improvements made by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in Court against Angrej Singh and when the witnesses appeared in this complaint case in the Court. It has come on record that Angrej Singh made an extra judicial confession before Amrik Singh admitting his CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M) -5- participation in the crime. The story of making extra judicial confession by the respondents/accused admitting their guilt, before Amrik Singh PW- 8, was discarded by the trial Judge by giving good reasons in Para No. 16 of the judgment under challenge. In the similar circumstances, statement made by Sharanjit Singh PW-7 was also rightly disbelieved by the trial Court.
Taking note of defence evidence on record, it was observed by the trial Court that respondents No.3 and 4, who are the elder brothers of Angrej Singh, were married, having their own families and were separate in mess and residence from Angrej Singh. It has also come on record that respondents No.4 and 5 are the father and mother respectively of Angrej Singh, their participation in the crime was not proved on record. There is nothing on record to prove that any conspiracy was hatched by respondents with Angrej Singh to kill the deceased. Angrej Singh and his wife (deceased) were living separate from the other family members.
It was contended before us by the respondents that Angrej Singh was polio affected and he alone could not have murdered Karamjit Kaur-his wife.
We have seen the medical evidence on record. 2 injuries were found on the person of the deceased. It is on record that to Angrej Singh, a motor cycle was given in dowry at the time of marriage, which obviously means that he was capable of walking and attending to the normal duties of life. The deceased was also polio affected.
Under the circumstances, argument raised is liable to be rejected. This Court feels that the view taken by the trial Judge is perfectly CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M) -6- 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 are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M) -7- 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."
Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:-
CRM-A No. 182-MA of 2012 (O & M) -8-
"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 29.1.2013 Ashwani