-1- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. Date of Decision: March 10 , 2010. Nirbhay Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Rajiv Godara, Advocate, and Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 2 to 5. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition filed by petitioner Nirbhay Singh against the acquittal of Waryam Singh, Gurdev Kaur, Pawan Singh alias Gurvinder Singh and Manjit Singh (respondents Nos.2 to 5) -2- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. of the charge under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') by the trial Court, was admitted for hearing on 31.8.2004. Petitioner Nirbhay Singh had married Raj Kaur, daughter of Waryam Singh and Gurdev Kaur (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) and sister of Pawan Singh alias Gurvinder Singh (respondent No.4). A case under Sections 363, 366, 376 read with Section 34 and Section 342 of the Code was registered at the instance of Waryam Singh, father of Raj Kaur, against petitioner Nirbhay Singh and others for kidnapping, abducting, raping and wrongfully confining Raj Kaur. However, after Raj Kaur made statement before the police that she had married petitioner Nirbhay Singh according to Sikh rites, that case was dropped. The marriage of Nirbhay Singh with Raj Kaur was not approved by the accused-respondents. The police had handed over the custody of Raj Kaur to Waryam Singh (respondent No.2). The petitioner than filed a petition in this Court praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. In that petition, Waryam Singh and Gurdev Singh, parents of Raj Kaur, were directed to produce Raj Kaur. The presence of Waryam Singh and Gurdev Singh was secured by this Court through issuance of non- bailable warrants against them. After Waryam Singh appeared in this Court, on an inquiry being made from Waryam Singh, he stated that his daughter was in the habit of disappearing from the house. -3- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. Waryam Singh could not reveal whereabouts of his daughter Raj Kaur. This Court, thereafter, ordered registration of a criminal case against Waryam Singh and Gurdev Kaur. During investigation, all the four accused (respondents Nos. 2 to 5) were arrested by the police and report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted before the Ilaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session. The trial Court, after framing charge, recording evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide judgment dated 18.1.2002, acquitted accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 of the charge framed against them, as afore-mentioned. As is apparent from the letter No.FA-II-2002/36075 dated 9.7.2002 written by the office of the Advocate General, Punjab, to the counsel for the petitioner, which has been placed on the file of the revision petition, no appeal by the State has been filed. This revision petition has been preferred by petitioner Nirbhay Singh challenging the judgment dated 9.7.2002 passed by the trial Court. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Godara, Advocate, and Ms. Divya Godara, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, appearing for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and have gone through the records of the case. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has -4- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. contended that the view taken by the trial Court is probable and cannot be substituted by another view even though possible to be drawn from the circumstances of the case. He submitted that the order of acquittal can be set aside only for compelling reasons and wherever two views are possible to be drawn, the one favourable to the accused persons should be preferred. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence. Before the circumstantial evidence is accepted, it has to satisfy that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; that the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence; that cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt; and that there must be a chain -5- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. The prosecution, in support of its case had examined Diwan Chand (P.W.1), Naresh Kumar (P.W.2), Nirbhay Singh (P.W.3), Inspector Surinder Pal Singh (P.W.4) and Moharrir Head Constable Ajaib Singh (P.W.5). Nirbhai Singh (P.W.3) deposed that he had married Raj Kaur on 27.12.1999 and that father of Raj Kaur, namely, accused-respondent Waryam Singh had got registered a criminal case against him and Raj Kaur. Both Nirbhay Singh and Raj Kaur were arrested by the police on 6.3.2000. The police then produced both of them in Court. Nirbhay Singh was sent to jail. Raj Kaur was produced in Court on 11.3.2000. She made a statement that she wanted to reside with Nirbhay Singh of her own accord. The Court sent Raj Kaur with her parents. On the basis of the statement of Raj Kaur, the criminal case registered against Nirbhay Singh was cancelled and he was discharged. He further stated that Waryam Singh had told him (Nirbhai Singh) that Raj Kaur had disgraced his (Waryam Singh's) family and that he would not allow her to live with Nirbhay Singh. He further stated that after 6.3.2000, he never met Raj Kaur. He then filed Criminal Writ Petition in this Court praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the production of Raj -6- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. Kaur. As has been noticed above, this Court had to secure the presence of Waryam Singh and Gurdev Kaur (accused -respondents Nos. 2 and 3) through non-bailable warrants. On an inquiry made from Waryam Singh by this Court, he stated that his daughter was in the habit of disappearing from the house. She had earlier disappeared with Nirbhay Singh. He further stated that she had then gone to Village Chakmanewal, Tehsil and District Ganganagar (Rajasthan). He further stated that on inquiry, it had been found that she had not reached the said village Chakmanewal. Waryam Singh did not mention as to on which date Raj Kaur had gone to Chakmanewal, Tehsil and District Ganganagar. He was also mum as to what steps he had taken to know the whereabouts of Raj Kaur. It was in these circumstances that this Court had ordered registration of a criminal case against the accused. It may also be mentioned here that this Court had appointed a Warrant Officer to search the residence of Waryam Singh and Gurdev Kaur (accused-respondents) for securing the release of Raj Kaur. The Warrant Officer was not taken to the residence of Waryam Singh and Gurdev Kaur as, in the meantime, the accused had disappeared from the village. On 11.8.2000, it was observed by this Court that Waryam Singh and Gurdev Kaur had no regards for the orders of this Court. Accordingly, non-bailable warrants of arrest of Waryam Singh and Gurdev Kaur were issued. -7- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. It has come on record that custody of Raj Kaur was handed over to Waryam Singh (accused-respondent No.2), her father, by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala on 11.3.2000 and thereafter she was not found alive. On 11.3.2000, when Raj Kaur was produced in the Court, she had made statement in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala that she had accompanied Nirbhay Singh of her own and even at that time she wanted to reside with Nirbhay Singh. It has also come on record that Raj Kaur had made another statement on 11.3.2000 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, to the effect that on that day she wanted to go with her father Waryam Singh and mother Gurdev Kaur, who were present in Court. She had further stated in the statement that she would reside with Nirbhay Singh. It has been noticed by the trial Court that Raj Kaur, who was major, all along wanted to reside with Nirbhay Singh. The trial Judge, however, observed that after 11.3.2000, Raj Kaur might have gone to the house of Nirbhay Singh and that since she was major, she could go to any person she liked. The trial Judge further observed that since Raj Kaur had contracted marriage with Nirbhay Singh in the natural course, she might have gone to his house to reside with him. Had it been so, there was no reason for Nirbhay Singh to pursue this case. It has also come on record that the marriage of Raj Kaur with petitioner Nirbhay Singh was not approved by her -8- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. parents and they were compelling her to return to them. The reason for disapproval of the marriage was that it was a inter-caste marriage. These were very strong circumstances proving the guilt of the accused. The investigation of this case was carried out by Inspector Surinder Pal Singh (P.W.4). He had arrested the accused. In consequence of the disclosure statement suffered by accused Pawan Singh alias Grinder Singh, he got recovered `Thapa' from the disclosed placed. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses at various stages of the investigation. No doubt Diwan Chand (P.W.1), before whom the accused had made extra-judicial confession and Naresh Kumar (P.W.2), a taxi driver, who had taken the accused along with Raj Kaur to Ratia in his taxi, did not support the case of the prosecution, but it hardly affects the strong circumstantial evidence appearing against the accused. A verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment the witnesses turn hostile and dispensation of justice is not dependant upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non-supporting of its case by the witnesses who appeared to have been won over by the accused does not at all affect the prosecution case. The facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the behaviour of accused-respondent Waryam Singh when he stated in this Court -9- Criminal Revision No.1455 of 2002. that he did not know the whereabouts of Raj Kaur after she had gone to Chakmanewal, Tehsil and District Ganganagar and had not reached there point an accusing finger towards the accused. The facts and circumstances discussed above clearly show that various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, the said circumstances point to the guilt of the accused-respondents with reasonable definiteness and the circumstances are in proximity to the time and situation of the occurrence. In this view of the matter, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the accused persons cannot be accepted. As such, there exists a manifest illegality in the judgment of acquittal resulting in miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is allowed, the order of acquittal of accused-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to pass a fresh judgment after hearing the parties. It is made clear that the trial Court should not, in any way, be influenced by any observation made by this Court touching the merits of the case while dealing with this revision petition. March 10, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE