[CASE NUMBER] 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [CASE NUMBER] Date of decision: 21.11.2012 [ENTITY] Applicant versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice [ENTITY] Hon'ble Mr.Justice [ENTITY] Present: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for the applicant [ENTITY], J.
This application has been filed by the complainant against judmgent dated 4.11.2011 vide which criminal complaint filed by her was dismissed resulting into acquittal of all the respondents from the charges framed against them.
Applicant is the sister of respondent No.2 and sister-in-law of respondent No.1. It was her allegation that respondents had killed her mother by giving her push/ blows on 19.1.2006.
The trial Judge has noted the following facts from her complaint:-
"2 that she is running a school in her village Chuslewar as her father had sold some land to her. Her mother dis-inherited accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] who are her sister- in-law and brother respectively, from her property by way of notice published in the Newspaper as both the accused were not having cordial relations with the mother of the complainant.
That on 19.1.2006, [ENTITY], her Bharjai (i.e. Wife of his brother [ENTITY] accused), her brother [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] gave push blows to her mother, as a result of which, she fell down on the ground and died due to her old age. The occurrence was witnessed by the complainant and [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY]. This occurrence occurred at about 2.15/2.30 PM. Her mother was subjected to post mortem examination at Civil Hospital, Patti. The matter was reported to the police of P.S. Patti. Although they assured to take action against the accused but they did not take any action against them. She also moved applications to the Human Rights Commission, Punjab, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar and I.G. Police, Chandigarh but when to no result she filed the complaint in the Court."
After recording preliminary evidence, notice was issued to the respondents to put in appearance. Copies of the documents were supplied to them as per norms. Case was committed to the competent Court for trial vide order datedc 24.4.2008. The respondents-accused were charge sheeted for commission of an offence under [SECTION] [ACT], to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution/ complainant produced three witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. Post-mortem report was brought on record by Dr.[ENTITY] (PW3). Death was stated to be the result of heart failure.
On conclusion of prosecution's evidence, separate statements of all the accused were recorded under [SECTION] [ACT] Entire incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution was put to them which they denied, pleaded innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. It was allegation of the prosecution that as the deceased and her father had disinherited respondent Nos.1 and 2 from their property, on account of that [ENTITY] was killed.
The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence found case of the prosecution/ complainant doubtful, giving benefit of the same, respondents- accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them. The trial Court has noticed discrepancies and improvements made by the complainant with regard to facts mentioned in the complaint and deposition made in Court. In complaint, it was stated by her that all the three accused had given push blows to her mother, whereas in Court, she has confined her allegations only against respondent No.1. PW2 [ENTITY] has specifically stated that accused - respondent No.3 was not present at the spot when alleged offence was committed. It was also noted by the trial Judge that facts on record proves that statement made by PW1 the complainant was not correct. In that regard, it was observed as under:-
"Further instances show that PW1 is giving wrong narration of facts. PW1 admitted in her cross examination that he reached police post with her husband [ENTITY] to report the matter but this version, PW1 has never given in her complaint rather to her discredit PW2 [ENTITY] has stated that he accompanied the complainant to P.S. Patti. Strangely enough, [ENTITY] husband of the complainant did not turn up in the Court to depose if he has accompanied [ENTITY] to report the matter to the police. Now if in this regard Ex.D1 which is the copy of the entry of the DDR dated 19.1.2006 is perused, it shows that [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY] got recorded the entry at 11.10 PM that there was a dispute between her mother and her sisxter-in-law [ENTITY] pertaining to the family property of which the civil suit is pending in the Court. On 19.1.2006, her brother [ENTITY] when had gone in connection with some work at Moga and her husband [ENTITY] who is employed with the Electricity Board had gone to Amritsar at about 2.15 PM, [ENTITY] threw the cow dung in front of her school, as a result of which, she restrained here and then her sister-in-law [ENTITY] grappeled with her and she after snatching the spade from her, came to her house and upon hearing raula, [ENTITY] her mother aged about 65 years came at the spot, to whom, she (complainant) was told by someone that [ENTITY] has given her push blows and when she came to know that her mother is lying in the street, she came there where her mother was sitting in an un-conscious condition. She was taken to the house and it was found that she has expired. Thereafter she called her husband [ENTITY] and her relative [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] and when she was going to give the intimation, the police met her on the way. It means that the entire story has been fabricated by the complainant due to ciivl dispute of land as well the property where the complainant was residing with her brother uand sister-in-law. A suggestion was also put to PW1 that [ENTITY] was also running a school and he has been entagled due to the professional rivalry and it has been further established that PW2 has not supported the presence of [ENTITY] at the spot. Even the presence of [ENTITY] PW2 at the spot is not established because of Ex.D1. Had PW2 been present at the spot is not established becase of Ex.D1. Had PW2 been present at the spot and would accompany the complainant to the P.S., his name would have been mentioned in the Ex.D1.
18. So far as snatching of spade from the hands of [ENTITY] s concerned, no mention of the same has been made by the complainant in the complaint or in her examination-in- chief but in her cross examination, she admitted that it is correct that on the day of occurrence, her sister-in-law [ENTITY] threw cow dung in her office and annoyed with this they entered into a scuffle. She further admitted that she snatched the spade from her sister-in-law. In a way, PW1 has supported the material contents of Ex.D1.
19. Further statement of PW1 seems to be false and exaggerated one when she has stated that her mother was lying un-conscious in the street and she was shifted by the people and herself and she was checked by the doctor of the village namely [ENTITY]. If the people had gathered there and Dr.[ENTITY] had checked her mother in the house, non- examination of any independent witness is fatal for the prosecution case and particularly so when the statements of PW1 and PW2 does not inspire any confidence. The complainant has also admitted in her cross examination that she left [ENTITY] near the dead body of her mother and she went to the P.S. to report the matter but said [ENTITY] has also not been examined whereas PMR Ex.P8 does not show that the dead body was received in the mortuary at 1 PM on 20.1.2006 and the police papers were received on 20.1.2006 at 1.15 PM. The dead body was brought by HC [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. It has not been specified by the complainant who had taken the dead body to the Civil Hospital for getting the post mortem examination conducted and, therefore, material facts have been concealed by the complainant which were must for her to reveal. The file which was summoned from the police does show the statement of the complainant recorded on 19.1.2006 but it is totally against the contents of the complaint lodged by the complainant which was filed after a considerable delay on 30.3.2006 i.e. After a gap of more than two months and 11 days which provide her sufficient time to bring in the coloured version of the exact picture."
The trial Judge has discussed the entire evidence in a threadbare manner. By giving valid reasons, deposition made by the witnesses has been discarded. Opinion expressed is as per law.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], 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 [PRECEDENT], 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 [PRECEDENT], 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 [PRECEDENT] and in [PRECEDENT], 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 [PRECEDENT], 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 [PRECEDENT], 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:-
"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 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.
([ENTITY]) Judge 21.11.2012 ([ENTITY]) gk Judge