CRIMINAL MISC. -A-No.568 -MA OF 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: September 19, 2011. Parties Name Sachin ...APPLICANT VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina PRESENT: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the applicant Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against judgment of acquittal dated March 23, 2011. Vide the judgment, mentioned above, the private respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. It is apparent from the records that FIR No. 58 dated January 23, 2009, was recorded against respondents No. 2 to 4 under Section 306/34 CRIMINAL MISC. -A-No.568 -MA OF 2011 -2- IPC. The case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court, reads thus: “Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 22.1.2009, ASI Sultan Singh along with other police officials was present at Gohana Road in connection with patrol duty. There he received an information that one person was lying dead near Dayal Velvet. On this, he reached at the spot and on the basis of the documents recovered from his pocket, his relations were informed through telephone. On receipt of the telephonic message, Sachin son of the deceased and other relatives of the deceased reached at the spot but Sachin refused to give any statement at that time. On 23.1.2009, ASI Sultan Singh along with SHO/ Inspector Saffuddin and other police officials reached General Hospital, Panipat. There, Sachin Kumar met the police party and presented an application for investigation regarding death of Tejpal son of Mohar Singh, in which it was alleged that his mother Sarita Devi have illicit relations with Anil Kumar son of Kirat Ram and her mother Sarita has filed a case against his father, which is pending in the court at Panipat. His mother and said Anil Kumar used to give threatening to his father Tejpal that if he would come to them, they would teach him a lesson. On 22.1.2009 at about 6.15 PM, the complainant received a telephonic message from Rajinder Kumar HC to the effect that Tejpal has met with an accident and he asked him as to why he was known to him. On this, the complainant told him that Tejpal is his father. On receipt of that information, he CRIMINAL MISC. -A-No.568 -MA OF 2011 -3- (Sachin) reached Bhim Sen Sachchar General Hospital, Panipat and found his father dead. The deadbody of his father Tejpal was identified by him and his relatives. Anil Kumar and his mother Sarita Devi were having grudge against his father Tejpal and they were making plan to commit his murder and both of them in furtherance of their common intention have killed his father. The police had recovered one suicide note in the pocket of his father, in which, he has alleged that Anil Kumar son of Kirat Ram, Rajiv son of Brahm Singh and Sarita wife of Tejpal, residents of H.No. 26-B have called him for discussion and if something had happened with him, his relations should be informed. The complainant had identified the handwriting of his father. The complainant sought legal necessary action against the culprits. On completion of evidence, final report was put in Court. Respondent No. 4 was declared innocent. Against respondents No. 2 and 3 charge-sheet was framed under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative under Section 306/34 IPC. The prosecution led evidence to prove its case. During pendency of the trial, respondent No. 4 was also summoned on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, they denied the same, pleaded innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence came to a conclusion that CRIMINAL MISC. -A-No.568 -MA OF 2011 -4- a fact of the recovery of the alleged suicide note was doubtful. It was further noted that it appeared to be a fabricated document. Furthermore, the alleged suicide note does not suggest that any abetment was given by the private respondents to the deceased to commit suicide as alleged. It has also come on record that the relations between the complainant and his brother – respondents No. 2 and 3 were not cordial. The divorce proceedings were also pending between the deceased and respondent No.2. The view taken by the trial Court is justified and is in consonance with the evidence on record. It is a case where, in view of evidence on record, it can safely be said that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused. Even in cases where two views are possible, after acquittal, in appeal, benefit will go to the accused. 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 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 CRIMINAL MISC. -A-No.568 -MA OF 2011 -5- 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.” Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court or any other factual error in the judgment, which may necessitate any interference by this Court. The opinion expressed by the trial Court was possible in view of evidence on record. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Sabina) Judge September 19, 2011 DKC