CIVIL APPEAL 729 of 2001 on 17 November 2000

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH...

Criminal Revision No.729 of 2001

Decided on : March 09, 2009

Harnek Singh

... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Punjab and others

... Respondents

CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present:Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.O.P.Dabla, Assistant Advocate GeneralPunjab.

-A.N.JINDAL, J.

The petitioner – complainant Harnek Singh (herein referredas `complainant') has assailed the judgment dated 17.11.2000 passed byAdditional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar, acquitting respondents –accused (herein referred as `accused') of the charge under Section 302/34of the Indian Penal Code.

A brief resume of the facts is that on 2.7.1998, thecomplainant in his application (Ex.PF) to the Police disclosed that hisfather had contracted two marriages and that he and Baldev Singh, aged26/27 years, were born out of them. Baldev Singh was a truck driver and was unmarried. He had illicit relations with Balbir Kaur alias Biro d/oGej r/o Mahalon. Amar Chand alias Ludan – respondent is the son ofBiro's mother's brother, whereas accused Dilbagh is her husband andthey both used to pursue Baldev Singh to severe his relations with Biro,but he did not stop. On 27.6.1998 at about 4/5 p.m., Baldev Singh madea telephonic call to the complainant and told that he has been beaten andadministered poison by accused Amar Chand, Dilbagh and five morepersons. Thereafter, he could not speak. Despite efforts, thecomplainant could not find his brother Baldev Singh. On 28.6.1998,dead body of Baldev Singh was recovered on the gate of sugar-mill,Nawanshahar situated at railway level crossing road. On the aforesaidcomplaint, a case was registered and the case was investigated into.

On completion of the investigation, report under Section173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted before the IlaqaMagistrate.

On commitment, the Trial Court charged all the threeaccused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which theypleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to substantiate the charge,examined Dr.Naresh Mittal (PW1), Harnek Singh – complainant (PW2),Mohan Singh (PW3), Baldev Singh draftsman (PW4), Malook Singh(PW5), Sub-Inspector Parveen Kanda (PW6), Constable Jatinder Singh(PW7), ASI Pawittar Singh (PW8) and Sub-Inspector Jaswinder Singh(PW9).

In their statements under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, the accused denied all the incriminatingcircumstances appearing against them and pleaded their falseimplication. However, they led no evidence in defence.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 27.6.1998.The names of the respondents were known to the complainant and thewitnesses on the same day. However, the First Information Reportversion having been recorded on 2.7.1998 i.e, after four days, does notcontain any plausible explanation. The witnesses had no difficulty toapproach the complainant. Though, brother of the deceased(complainant) stated that he was informed by the deceased that theaccused had administered him poison through alcohol, yet as per reportof the Chemical Examiner, no poison was detected in the organs, sent forchemical analysis. There is no eye-witness. The extra-judicialconfession is a very week type of evidence and no reliance could beplaced on such testimony, unless, it finds corroboration from otherevidence. Resultantly, it could be inferred that the prosecution has notcome with the true version and has suppressed the genesis of occurrence,and that the defence version is believable.

The law is well-settled that while hearing a revision/appealagainst an order of acquittal, interference would be called for only whenthe judgment is palpably perverse and is based on a misreading of the Criminal Revision No.729 of 2001[ 4 ]

evidence. However, it is equally settled that where two views arepossible, then the one taken by the Trial Court should not be disturbed.

As a result of the above discussion, the revision petitionfails and the same is hereby dismissed.

March 09, 2009 `gian'

( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE