Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Sukhwinder Kaur And Others on 3 November, 2012
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rameshwar Singh Malik
CRM A 694-MA of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM A 694-MA of 2012
Date of decision: 03.11.2012
State of Punjab
.....Applicant
versus
Sukhwinder Kaur and others
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik
Present: Mr.A.S.Grewal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the applicant
Jasbir Singh, J.
This application has been filed by the State of Punjab under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. Seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 23.5.2012.
Vide that judgment, respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them, whereas Satwinder Singh son of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively was convicted for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine.
As per facts on record, the respondents alongwith Satwinder Singh were made to face trial in FIR No.75 dated 30.3.2010 for commisison of offences under Sections 304B, 307, 498A, 120B IPC. In the alternative, they were also charged under Section 302 IPC.
Kamaljit Kaur deceased was the wife of Satwinder Singh. Out of the wedlock, a male child (aged about 2 ½ years) was born.
Process of law was initiated on an intimation received from Civil Hospital, Mansa on 29.3.2010 regarding admission of Kamaljit Kaur CRM A 694-MA of 2012 2 in an injured condition. It was stated that her condition is serious and a request was made to record her dying declaration. SI Dhian Singh went to the hospital. Doctor declared the injured unfit to make a statement. The said police officer again visited the hospital and came to know that the injured has been referred to PGI at Chandigarh. On 30.3.2010 ASI Bhupinder Singh (PW3) went to PGI at Chandigarh. Doctor declared the injured fit to make a statement. Her statement was recorded. The trial Judge has recorded the following facts from her statement:-
"the statement of Kamaljit Kaur in which she has stated that she was married to Satwinder Singh s/o Harbans Singh resident of Ward No.9, Mansa about three years ago. She has a son aged about two and half years. She remained ill for the last 15 days but her in-laws did not get her medical treatment. She further stated that her husband had illicit relations with her counsin Veerpal Kaur and for this reason he always used to pick up quarrell with her. Her mother-in-law Sukhwinder Kaur, father-in-law Harbans Singh and sister-in-law Manjit Kaur used to demand more dowry from her and used to say that her father has not done anything and for this reasons that used to harass her.
3. She further stated that they were doing all this on the instigation of her uncle Comrade Darshan Singh. Yesterday at about 7.00 a.m., her husband caught hold of her from her arms, her mother-in-law sprinkled kerosene oild on her body and set her on fire. She further stated that she became CRM A 694-MA of 2012 3 unconscious and lateron she came to know that her neighbours had got her admitted in the Civil Hospital, Mansa. Her in-laws had set her of fire with intention to kill her and prayed for action. After recording the statement of complainant, the same was read over and explained to her who after admitting the same as correct put her thumb impressions and thereafter ASI Bhupinder Singh after making his endorsement over the same, sent to the police station for registration of case." The SI Bhupinder Singh also moved an application before the Duty Magistrate Mr.Amit Sharma, JMIC, Chandigarh (PW7) to record dying declaration of Kamaljit Kaur @ Kamaldeep Kaur. The said officer reached PGI and recorded her statement. Kamaljit Kaur died on 3.4.2010. ASI Bhupinder Singh (PW3) went to the place of occurrence, which was demarcated by Suresh Kumar. He got prepared a rough site plan with correct marginal notes of that place. He also recovered a plastic can of kerosene oil, half burnt pieces of clothes and a match stick from the spot which were taken into possession against recovery memos. After receipt of intimation regarding death of Kamaljit Kaur, the investigating officer prepared inquest report on the dead body and sent it for postmortem examination. Satwinder Kaur and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 5.4.2010. On disclosure statements made by them, dowry articles were recovered. During investigation, Manjit Kaur -respondent No.4 was found innocent. Other accused were also arrested in the meantime. The investigating officer recorded statements of the witnesses and after completing other formalities final report was put in Court. Copies of the CRM A 694-MA of 2012 4 documents were supplied to the accused as per norms. Their case was committed to the competent Court for trial. They were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During pendency of trial, Manjit Kaur respondent No.4 was also summoned to face trial by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Prosecution produced 16 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. After completion of prosecution's evidence statements of the respondents-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They were afforded an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution's evidence. They denied those allegations, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence.
The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence found Satwinder Singh husband of the deceased guilty, he was convicted for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced accordingly as mentioned in earlier part of this order. The respondents were given benefit of doubt by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against them beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
It is on record that the deceased Kamaljit Kaur made two dying declaration statements, first before ASI Bhupidner Singh (PW3) and another before PW7 Amit Sharma, JMIC Chandigarh. The trial Court has analyzed contents of both the statements and came to a conclusion that so far as husband of the deceased is concerned the allegations levelled by the deceased were categoric against him in both the statements, whereas others were given benefit of doubt. It has also come on record that father of the deceased, Sham Lal (PW1) has resiled from his statement and did not CRM A 694-MA of 2012 5 support case of the prosecution regarding harassment to the deceased by the accused for dowry. The trial Judge when giving benefit of acquittal to the respondents has observed as under:-
"25. In view of above referred case laws, these two dying declarations made by the deceased Kamaldeep Kaur are contradictory and not consistent with regard to the role and attribution of all accused except Satwinder Singh and both the dying declarations are severable and are partly correct only with regard to the role and attribution of husband as he is named in both the dying declarations whereas these dying declarations are not partly reliable and credit worthy with regard to role and attribution of above said accused and their conviction cannot be based upon these dying declarations, particularly when there is no direct evidence against them and there is no corroboration of their role and attribution of the crime allegedly committed by them. In the first declaration before the ASI the deceased stated she was nabbed by her husband and her mother-in-law poured Kerosene Oil whereas in the second dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, she stated that all the accused poured Kerosene oil upon her. The fact of pouring kerosene oil over deceased by the all the accused is not corroborated by any independent witness. Hence the conviction of these accused except Satwinder Singh cannot be based upon the contradictory dying declarations.CRM A 694-MA of 2012 6
26. Moreover there is no direct evidence against them and there are not beneficiaries for demand of dowry and they are living separately from the accused Satwinder Singh. PW1 Sham Lal father of deceased when came into witness box has stated that accused Satwinder Singh, father-in-law, mother-in- law, Manjit Kaur, Darshan Singh never tortured his daughter for demand of dowry nor set her on fire. He has stated during his cross-examination that Darshan Singh is residing separately from other accused and he is remotely related to other accused from brotherhuood. He further stated that his daughter and her husband were living separately from her in laws. He further admitted that Kamaldeep Kaur and Satwinder Singh had separate ration card from other family members.
27. Similarly PW2 Suresh Kumar has stated that he does not know anything regarding this case. He does not know whether accused present in the Court were greedy persons and used to maltreat Kamaldeep Kaur for demand of dowry. He has admitted during his cross-examination that Satwinder Singh was residing separately from his parents. His parents are residing separartely. He does not know Darshan Singh.
28. Further more if deceased Kamaldeep Kaur would have been actually harassed by accused for demand of more dowry PW1 Sham Lal, father of the deceased, would never have spared the accused and he would have definately deposed CRM A 694-MA of 2012 7 against them. Moreover he has not stated anything against them as discussed above."
It has also come on record that Satwinder Singh along with his wife Kamaljit Kaur (deceased) was living separate from the respondents. The trial Court has rightly noted that if deceased was being harassed by the respondents-accused her father PW1 Sham Lal would not have resiled from his statement and had not spared them. It was also rightly noted that by making demand for dowry, the respondents who are old parents and sister were not going to be benefited in any manner. The trial Court also rightly found that there is no direct evidence against the respondents to participate in the crime and there is nothing to prove that they were in conspiracy with Satwinder Singh, the main accused.
The trial Court has separated truth from falsehood by taking allegations against Satwinder Singh husband of the deceased as correct. He was convicted and sentenced whereas the respondents were rightly acquitted.
This Court feels that the opinion formed by the trial Judge is perfectly justified.
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 CRM A 694-MA of 2012 8 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 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 CRM A 694-MA of 2012 9 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:-
"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 CRM A 694-MA of 2012 10 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 the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence on record by the trial Court. No case is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
03.11.2012 (Rameshwar Singh Malik)
gk Judge