Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Deepak And Anr. on 21 May, 2007
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, M.M.S. Bedi
JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. The State has preferred this appeal against acquittal of the respondents of the charge under Sections 302/120B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 23.4.1997 at 8.15 P.M., Harjinder Singh (PW-1) saw a dead body on the bank of Butana Branch canal in between Burji (pillar) No.56 and 57, near the fields of Dharam Singh in the area of Village Sarfabad. The body was smeared with blood and had injuries on left eye and on the back side of the head. Harjinder Singh called Jai Karan, Chowkidar, who was working in the nearby fields and leaving him there to guard the body, he went to Hari Ram, Sarpanch. While coming back, a police party headed by PW-17 Darshan Lal, SI/SHO, Police Station, Sarfabad met Criminal Appeal No.370-DBA of 1999 him at Bus Stand, Sarfabad. Harjinder Singh got his statement (Ex. PA) recorded before PW-17 Darshan Lal at 10-00 P.M. On the said statement, FIR was registered and investigation was commenced. PW-17 Darshan Lal went to the place where the dead body was lying. During night, no further proceeding could be conducted. On 24.4.1997, a team of experts of the scene of Crime Branch headed by PW-13 Nand Ram, Head Constable reached the spot and inspected the scene of occurrence. Report (Ex. PM) was prepared by PW-13 Nand Ram. PW-17 Darshan Lal got photographs taken and also got the body identified by PW-3 Shamsher Singh and PW-4 Rajinder Singh, who had come to the spot. He prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He recovered blood-stained earth, a pair of shoes, a bottle of plastic containing liquor and one parna (piece of cloth) stained with blood and also took other items into possession. He also took into possession clothes of the deceased after post-mortem examination. He recorded statement Ex. PK of PW-11 Ram Kumar. He received message that Deepak, accused, who was son of the deceased had surrendered before the Court of Shri R.S. Bagri, JMIC, Panipat on 25.4.1997. After taking the order from the Court, he arrested the accused. The accused suffered a disclosure-statement that he had kept concealed a country-made pistal of 315 bore and two live cartridges in the fields. On 28.4.1997, the accused got the said items recovered. The accused also got recovered motor-cycle No.HR-12-1314 and also pointed out the place of commission of murder of the deceased Ram Chander, who was his father, by him. The accused Vidyawati widow of the Criminal Appeal No.370-DBA of 1999 deceased was also arrested and after completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.
3. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and led other evidence.
4. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that the deceased had ousted his wife Vidyawati alongwith her children namely Deepak, accused and his sister Neelam. He had bad habits. The brothers and nephews of the deceased wanted to grab the land and after his death, the land was transferred to the names of PW-3 Shamsher Singh and PW-5 Joginder Singh and on that account, accused were falsely implicated.
5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondents.
6. The substance of reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the respondents are as under:
(i) PW-3 Shamsher Singh deposed that the accused Deepak accompanied by an unknown boy came to the village on a motorcycle on 23.4.1997 at 2.00 P.M. and asked the deceased to accompany them. The deceased refused to accompany them. He was forcibly taken away after exchange of hot words. Contradictory version was given by PW-5 Joginder Singh, who stated that he did not see any unknown boy with Deepak. PW-5 Joginder Singh is the real brother of PW-3 Shamsher Singh and they got the entire property of the deceased. They did not intervene even after seeing the occurrence and did not report the matter to the police. PW-4 Rajinder Singh is the cousin of the deceased Ram Chander and he did not support the version of Deepak, accused, having quarreled with the deceased or Deepak, accused having taken away the deceased alongwith any unknown boy. Thus, the main evidence of last seen provided by PW-3 Shamsher Singh, PW-4 Rajinder Singh and PW-5 Joginder Singh suffered from serious contradictions and was not reliable.
(ii) The extra-judicial confession claimed to have been made before PW-11 Ram Kumar on 24.4.1997 at 4.00 P.M., was not proved, as the witness did not support such extrajudicial confession having been made before him.
(iii) Jai Karan, Chowkidar, who is alleged to have been called by PW-1 Harjinder Singh immediately after the occurrence, was not examined as a witness.
(iv) No significant findings were given by the experts of the scene of occurrence. We have heard learned Counsel for the State and perused the record.
7. It is clear from the record that there is no direct evidence of the accused having committed the murder. The circumstantial evidence relied upon mainly comprises of evidence of last seen. The same has been found to be discrepant and contradictory. Extra judicial confession has not been proved. PW-5 Joginder Singh did not support the prosecution version while the versions given by PW-3 Shamsher Singh and PW-4 Rajinder Singh were found to be contradictory.
8. It is well-settled that in case of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance relied upon must be clearly established and the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to exclude all possibilities of innocence of the accused. In the present case, this test has not been met. The view taken by the trial Court is certainly a possible view and is not liable to be interfered with merely because different view could be taken. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Honble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:
21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra . The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat :
While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.
9. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the acquittal of the respondents.