-1- Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2005. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2005. Date of Decision: March 11, 2010. Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS Rajinder Kumar alais Raju 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 ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the State-respondent No.3. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition has been filed by complainant- petitioner Pawan Kumar, against the judgment dated 14.7.2004, 1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), -2- Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2005. Amritsar, whereby accused-respondents Rajinder Kumar alias Raju and Lakhwinder Kaur, were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). Kavita Kumari, sister of complainant Pawan Kumar, was married with accused-respondent Rajinder Kumar in 1992. Three children i.e two boys and one girl, were born out of this wed- lock. As per allegations of the complainant, Rajinder Kumar had illicit relations with Lakhwinder Kaur (accused-respondent). Kavita Kumari used to object to these illicit relations of Rajinder Kumar with Lakhwinder Kaur. The complainant also entreated with accused Rajinder Kumar to desist from this illicit relationship, but to no effect. On 27.8.2001, at about 10 A.M, some unknown person informed the complainant telephonically that Kavita Kumari had been burnt to death and was admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Kavita Kumar succumbed to the burn injuries on 28.8.2001 at 6.20 A.M. After completion of investigation and due formalities, challan against the accused was presented. After recording evidence and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the commission of suicide by Kavita Kumar was abetted by the accused. In this case, complainant Pawan Kumar (P.W.2), brother of Kavita Kumari (deceased) and Santosh Rani (P.W.3), mother of the deceased, -3- Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2005. supported the prosecution case. Varinder Kumar (P.W.10), maternal uncle of the deceased, also corroborated the version given by Pawan Kumar (P.W.2) and Santosh Rani (P.W.3). Dr.Gurmanjit Rani (P.W.1), who along with Dr.Amarjit Singh had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kavita Kumari, stated that the deceased had suffered 100 percent ante mortem burns. Ritika (P.W.14), daughter of Kavita Kumar (deceased) was got summoned by the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the prosecution, she was the eye-witness to the occurrence. Ritika (P.W.14), when examined in Court on 27.8.2001, disclosed her age as nine years. The occurrence had taken place on 27.8.2001. It means her age at the time of occurrence was about six and a half years. Statement of Ritika was recorded without oath. It was stated by her that she was present when her mother was burnt to death by both the accused. She further explained that kerosene oil on the deceased was sprinkled by Lakhwinder Kaur and she was set ablaze with the stick of match box by accused Rajinder Kumar. In her examination-in-chief, Ritika stated that she had disclosed the police about the occurrence. It is not understandable as to why Ritika was not joined in the investigation if she had disclosed to the police about the fact that her mother had been set ablaze by the accused. Statement of Ritika was not recorded by the police during investigation. Ritika stated that on the date when her statement was recorded in Court, she was brought to the Court by her maternal grandfather and she was told by him to make -4- Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2005. statement. She further stated that she had been tutored by her maternal grandfather to say what was stated by her about the occurrence. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Judge was right in not placing implicit reliance on the statement of Ritika (P.W.14). Besides, Pawan Kumar (P.W.2), in his cross-examination stated that he did not complain against the accused to any one. He even did not talk to any person about the illicit relations between the accused. Santosh Rani (P.W.3), mother of the deceased, in her cross-examination stated that she did not complain to the police authorities against the accused. She further stated that the deceased too herself had not complained against the accused to any one. Accused-respondent Rajinder Kumar was admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, on 27.8.2001 i.e on the day when the occurrence had taken place. Copy of the Bed Head Ticket is Exhibit D.A. Accused Rajinder Kumar was discharged from the hospital on 16.9.2001. Bed Head Ticket (Exhibit D.A) was proved by Darshan Singh (D.W.1), who was Librarian of Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Darshan Singh stated that accused Rajinder Kumar had suffered 40 per cent burn injuries. Dr.Inderjit Joshi (D.W.2) deposed that Bed Head Ticket (Exhibit D.A) was maintained in the hospital under his charge. In case the accused had pre-planned to get rid of the deceased by setting her on fire, then Rajinder Kumar would not have suffered so many burn injuries. The circumstances of the case rule out the possibility that the deceased was set on fire by the accused. -5- Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2005. Rajinder Kumar had tried to douse the fire in case suicide was committed by Kavita Kumari or she had suffered burn injuries incidentally. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and going through the records of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the above-mentioned findings of the trial Court. The impugned judgment is well- reasoned and calls for no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, 2002 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 61: 2002 Cri.L.J 3788: 2002 A.I.R (SC) 2907: 2002 (3) Crimes 130, the apex Court observed that High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. It was further observed that High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court except to prevent miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment without considering material evidence on record or that his judgment is consisted of faulty reasoning. In the instant case, I find that this is a case of complete application of mind on the part of the trial Court. All aspects have been rightly and consistently considered and -6- Criminal Revision No.1257 of 2005. adequate reasons have been given by the trial Court for acquitting the accused-respondents. Consequently, I do not find any reason to convert the finding of acquittal, recorded by the trial Court, into one of conviction. For the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the impugned judgment and dismiss the revision petition. March 11,2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE