Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devat Ram vs State Of Haryana & Others on 21 July, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron, Jora Singh
CRM No.61275 of 2010 and
CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No. 61275 of 2010 and
CRM No.1183-MA of 2010
Date of Decision: 21.07.2011
Devat Ram
..... Applicant
Versus
State of Haryana & Others.
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
*****
S.S. Saron, J The respondents No.2 and 3 (Sohan Lal son of Munshi Ram and Sunita wife of Ram Chander) have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short). Devat Ram (applicant), who is the father of Ram Chander (deceased) has filed the present criminal miscellaneous application in terms of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC - for short) seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents No.2 and 3. Alongwith the appeal criminal CRM No.61275 of 2010 and CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -2- miscellaneous application has been filed, seeking condonation of 670 days delay in the filling the application seeking leave to appeal.
Smt. Sunita (respondent No.3) was married with Ram Chander (deceased). The initial prosecution version was based on the statement of Sheo Chand son of Budh Ram who stated that they were three brothers and two sisters. His elder sister Savitri Devi was married to Ram Chander (deceased) son of Dev Dutt in village Kaluana. They had three daughters and a son. The brother-in-law of Sheo Chand son of Budh Ram i.e. Ram Chander (deceased) were three brothers, who were residing separately from their parents. Brothers and father of Sheo Chand had gone to do labour work at the brick kiln and Ram Chander (deceased) used to do labour work in the village itself. Due to holidays in the school; Savitri alongwith her children had come to village Nuhiyanwali on 01.06.2007. Sheo Chand had tried to contact Ram Chander (deceased) on his mobile phone on 02.06.2007 but there was no response. Sheo Chand again telephoned Ram Chander (deceased) on 03.06.2007 but again there was no response. Thereafter, Sheo Chand enquired on telephone from Sohan Lal son of Munshi Ram (respondent No.2), who is a cousin of Ram Chander (deceased). He informed him after 15/20 minutes that he and Sahab Ram had noticed that Ram Chander (deceased) was lying dead on a cot in his house. Sheo Chand CRM No.61275 of 2010 and CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -3- alongwith his sister Savitri and father Budh Ram went to village Kaluana and found Ram Chander lying dead on a cot with a swollen head and the body had turned blue besides, blisters had developed on his chest, neck and arms and blood was oozing out from his nose. It appeared that some poisonous insect had bitten him which resulted in his death. They did not suspect anyone as they had verified the said fact. Leaving Sohal Lal son of Munshi Ram (respondent No.2) and Sahab Ram son of Hari Ram and Budh Ram there, he (Sheo Chand) had come to the police station with Sarpanch Jabdev Singh. On his statement DDR No.7 was recorded. Thereafter, Devat Ram (applicant) father of Ram Chander (deceased), submitted an application (Ex.P6) to the police in which he inter alia alleged that Ram Chander (deceased) was married with Sunita daughter of Budh Ram in village Nuhiyanwali and that Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) his nephew (brother's son) was a JBT teacher in Mewat. Sohan Lal, it was alleged had disapproving relations with Sunita (respondent No.3) for the last many years. They had asked them to refrain themselves from such relationship. Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) during summer vacations had come to village Kaluana on 01.06.2007 As per his plan he had sent some intoxicating tablets through his son Vikram to Sunita (respondent No.3) who administered them to Ram Chander at about 11.00/12.00 a.m. in lime water (shikanjvi) as a result of which Ram Chander got CRM No.61275 of 2010 and CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -4- stupefied and lay down on a cot. Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) then asked Sunita (respondent No.3) and his wife Kamla to go to village Nuhiyanwali so that the incident could be suppressed. However, when they reached the bus stand of Kaluana, Sunita (respondent No.3) informed Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) that she had administered all the tablets to Ram Chander upon which Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) stated that he would do the job. Thereafter, Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) had gone to the house of Ram Chander at about 1.00/1.30 p.m. and by sitting on his chest caused his death by throttling. He then informed Sunita (respondent No.3) in the evening that he had killed Ram Chander. According to Devat Ram (applicant), Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3) had confessed their guilt in his presence and in the presence of Bajrang, Lekh Ram Namberdar and Shishpal Singh, Member Block Samiti and Perhlad Singh Jakhar in the village. They had begged for pardon. On the basis of application (Ex.P6) FIR (Ex.P5) was registered on 15.07.2007 for the commission of offences under Sections 302/34 IPC. The case was investigated by SI/SHO Ranbir Singh of Police Station Dabwali who inspected the spot and recorded statements of witnesses. Thereafter, ASI Balbir Singh of CIA Staff, Sirsa investigated the case. He recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted proceedings under Section 174 the Cr.P.C. on 03.06.2007. Thereafter he CRM No.61275 of 2010 and CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -5- arrested Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3) on 16.07.2007. The post-mortem on the dead body of Ram Chander was got conducted from CHC Dabwali. However, the cause of death was deferred by the Doctor for want of chemical analysis report. After completion of investigations, police report (challan) was filed by the prosecution. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dabwali vide order dated 23.10.2007 in view of the offence under Section 302 IPC being alleged committed the case to the Court of Session. Sohan Lal (respondents No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3) were charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11 witnesses, besides, tendered documents and evidence. The learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, after considering the evidence and material on record vide its judgment and order dated 15.10.2008 acquitted Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3).
Aggrieved against the said judgment and order dated 15.10.2008, the applicant (Devat Ram) has filed the present criminal miscellaneous application seeking grant of leave to appeal. Earlier, the applicant (Devat Ram) had filed criminal revision No.843 of 2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.03.2010.
CRM No.61275 of 2010 and
CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -6-
Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, learned counsel
appearing for the applicant has contended that the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional. It is submitted that earlier a revision petition was filed on 15.01.2009, which was within the period of limitation. Thereafter, the Registry of this Court raised some objections and the revision petition was re-filed on 06.03.2009 after removing the objections. The Court in view of the amendment in Section 372 Cr.P.C. relegated the petitioner to the remedy of filing an appeal vide order dated 12.03.2010. In the process a delay of 670 days has occurred. It is further submitted that in any case that the applicant lodged the FIR against Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3) as Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) who is his nephew (brother's son) had disapproving relations with Sunita (respondent No.3) for the last many years. Despite Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) being stopped from continuing with such a relationship he continued with his relationship with Sunita (respondent No.3). It is in consequence of their said relationship that Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3) administered some intoxicating substance to Ram Chander (deceased). The intoxicated tablets were given by Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) to Sunita (respondent No.3) through his son Vikram. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and CRM No.61275 of 2010 and CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -7- material on record and has gravely erred in acquitting Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3).
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for applicant. However, we find no merit in the same. The initial version that was recorded by the police is the statement of Sheo Chand son of Budh Ram, who stated that Ram Chander had died due to biting of a poisonous insect and he did not suspect anyone. Proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C were conducted and the case was closed. Thereafter, after about more than a month, Devat Ram (applicant) filed an application stating that Ram Chander (deceased) has been killed in suspicious circumstances by Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3). The dead body of Ram Chander was subjected to post-mortem examination and Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) who conducted the postmortem deferred his opinion regarding the cause of death so as to wait for the chemical examiner's report. As per the chemical examiner report (Ex.P4), chemical examination was negative for common poison and ethyl alcohol. Therefore, according to Dr. Ramesh Kumar (PW-1) the cause of death was due to asphyxia. The assertion of applicant (Devat Ram) was that Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3) had confessed their guilt in his presence and in the presence of Bajrang, Lekh Ram Namberdar and Shishpal Singh, Member Block CRM No.61275 of 2010 and CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -8- Samiti and Perhlad Singh Jakhar in the village is not tenable. It was confessed by respondents No.2 and 3 that they had administered poison to Ram Chander (deceased). However, it is not a case of administering poison and the cause of death has been found to be asphyxia. Therefore, the alleged confession said to be made by respondents No.2 and 3 is absolutely inconsequential. It may also be noticed that it has been alleged that the doctor did not find any ligature mark on the neck of Ram Chander (deceased). The learned trial Court noticed that firstly death was alleged to be by way of an insect bite, then by administering poisonous tablets and then by throttling by Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) with the use of a Parna. The written complaint in this regard made by Devat Ram (applicant) father of the deceased is Ex.P6. However, no ligature mark was found on the neck of Ram Chander (deceased); besides, no poison was administered. Therefore, the three circumstances mentioned in the application Ex.P6 i.e. insect bite, administering of poisonous tablets and throttling by Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) with the use of Parna, are not established. Moreover, there is a delay of more than a month in lodging the FIR on 15.07.2007 in respect of the incident that occurred on 02.06.2007. Though prompt lodging of a FIR is not an un-mistakable guarantee for the truthfulness of a prosecution case but in the facts and circumstances of the present case it is of some relevance as CRM No.61275 of 2010 and CRM No. 1183-MA of 2010 -9- the initial version of Sheo Chand was that he did not suspect any one. The fact that there allegedly was a disapproving relationship between respondents No.2 and 3 was in the knowledge of Sheo Chand and Devat Ram (applicant) when Ram Chander had died and yet they remained dormant for more than a month.
In the facts and circumstances the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting Sohan Lal (respondent No.2) and Sunita (respondent No.3) are just and proper and merely because an other view may be possible, is no ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court. In the circumstances there is no merit in the criminal miscellaneous application seeking leave to appeal in terms of Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the criminal misc. application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. Since the application seeking leave to appeal has been dismissed the question of condonation of delay in filing the appeal is merely academic and the same is also dismissed.
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) JUDGE July 21, 2011 Sham