IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.27-MA of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.03.2009 Gurdip Singh Applicant Versus Paramjit Singh and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr.Sachin Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Bhajan Singh Bhasaur, Advocate for the applicant Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.A.S.Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab For respondent No.3 ….. Jasbir Singh, J. This application has been filed with a prayer, to grant leave to file an appeal against order dated 15.11.2008, vide which, the private respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. In his complaint, it was allegation of the applicant that the respondents, on 6.8.2002 at 4.30 AM poured kerosene oil upon Pritam Kaur and put her to fire. She died in the CMC Hospital at Ludhiana on 7.8.2002. Criminal Misc. No.27-MA of 2009 2 It is an admitted fact on record that Pritam Kaur deceased was grandmother of the applicant, she was mother of respondent No.1 Paramjit Singh. Respondent No.2 is her daughter-in-law. Contrary to this , it was case of the respondents that on the above said date, deceased Pritam Kaur had caught fire by accident which resulted into severe burn injuries to her. She was immediately shifted to the hospital, where she died. On intimation given by respondent No.1, DDR was recorded by ASI Gurdial Singh (DW1) and on verification, it was found to be a case of an accident. As per record, mater was also investigated by Sukhdev Singh, SHO, Gurjeet Singh, DSP, Gurdeep Singh, SP and SSP Barnala. Their reports have been brought on record as Ex.DW3/A to Ex.DW3/E. All the officers mentioned above found that injuries were caused to deceased Pritam Kaur by chance when she was removing hot water from a stove. By reiterating his allegations, as found mentioned in earlier part of this order, the applicant filed a complaint. After recording pre-charge evidence, the respondents were summoned to face trial. To prove his case, the applicant produced himself as a witness in Court. He also produced Bant Singh (PW2) an alleged eye witness, Mohinder Singh (PW3), before whom, it was stated that an extra judicial confession was made by respondent No.1. He also produced Kamal Deep (PW4), registration clerk in the office of Sub- Registrar, Barnala to prove Will executed by Pritam Kaur, deceased in his favour. On conclusion of complainant’s evidence, statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them which they denied, pleaded innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. Criminal Misc. No.27-MA of 2009 3 The trial Court on appraisal of evidence found the respondents not guilty and accordingly, they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence this application. After hearing counsel for the applicant, this Court is convinced that the order passed by the trial Court is perfectly justified. Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate misreading of evidence on record which may necessitate interference by us in the judgment under challenge. As per record, burn injuries were caused to Pritam Kaur deceased in village Sehjra at about 4.30 AM on 6.8.2002. It was case of the applicant that she was put to fire because she had refused to change her Will dated 18.1.2001 executed by her in favour of the applicant and his uncle Roop Singh. Vide that Will, nothing was given to respondent No.1. Respondents have proved on record that deceased Pritam Kaur was living with them for the last about three years. There was no dispute regarding her property. She had already transferred land in favour of respondent No.1, as per his share, vide sale deed on 5.7.2001. The trial Court has rightly accepted the above said version of the respondents. If that is so, there was no motive with the respondents to cause harm to the deceased Smt.Pritam Kaur. Bant Singh (PW2) was introduced as an eye witness. It is an admitted fact that he was closely related to the complainant. The trial Court has discarded his testimony by observing as under:- “Bant Singh PW2 has testified to the effect that the complainant is the son of his sister. Even, the complainant has deposed to the effect that Bant Singh is his maternal uncle. The conduct of a witness is a significant factor which has to be Criminal Misc. No.27-MA of 2009 4 looked into the settle the controversy. After the incident, Bant Singh PW2 maintained studded silence and never reported the matter to any one. He neither informed the police nor his sister nor his brother. He has testified to the effect that the accused had threatened him and consequently the prosecution is seeking to built up a case to the effect that on account of threat he never reported the matter to any one. The version put forth by the prosecution does not sound to be convincing. In the complaint, it has been alleged that Bant Singh raised alarm and other residents of the village were attracted at the spot. On seeing the people being attracted at the spot the accused got scared and Pritam Kaur was taken to CMC and Hospital, Ludhiana. In the event, the accused have themselves got scared, it cannot be said that they could have hurled any threat upon Bant Singh. Bant Singh PW2 has further stated that he told about the incident for the first time to the complainant after about 1/1.14 years. Bant Singh PW2 had remained quite for a long period of time. The studded silence and inaction on his part indicates that the possibility of his introduction at a subsequent stage cannot be ruled out. The conduct of Bant Singh PW2 in not informing any body about the incident for a fairly long period of time renders him unreliable and I do not deem it appropriate to place reliance upon his deposition.” We feel that the reasoning given by the trial Court needs no interference. Perusal of statement made by this witness shows that he had not deposed Criminal Misc. No.27-MA of 2009 5 truth in Court. Probability of the presence of PW2 at the spot has rightly been doubted by the trial Court. The applicant has cited Mohinder Singh (PW3) as a witness before whom, respondent No.1 had allegedly made an extra judicial confession. By noting that Mohinder Singh was neither Lamberdar nor member Panchayat, none of his relatives was employed in the police department, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved his statement, by observing as under:- “On adverting to the merits of the present case, it is significant to note that Mohinder Singh PW3 is neither a Lamberdar nor member of panchayat of his village. None of his relatives is employed in police. He has failed to specify date or month when Paramjit Singh came to him. It shall not be out of place to mention here that as per the prosecution version, the extra judicial confession was made after a lapse of time of more than ten months after the date of occurrence on 8.6.2003. The final report was submitted by the SSP, Barnala on 13.11.2002 and SDM, Barnala concurred with the same on 15.11.2002 as is borne out from the report Ex.DW3/E. The matter with regard to the death of Pritam Kaur was closed. No investigation was pending in the matter. There was no occasion for Paramjit Singh to visit Mohinder Singh PW3 to make extra judicial confession. Furthermore, Mohinder Singh PW3 was not in a position to extend any help to the accused nor any help was sought from him. The intervening time gap also tends to falsify the version of the prosecution with regard to the extra judicial Criminal Misc. No.27-MA of 2009 6 confession made by Paramjit Singh accused before Mohinder Singh PW3. It has also come on record that respondent Paramjit Singh had initiated criminal proceedings against Darshan Singh and Dalwara Singh regarding fraudulent sale of a tractor, Darshan Singh was closely related to Mohinder Singh (PW3). In view of preexisting enmity between the parties, there was no occasion for respondent No.1 to make any confessional statement before the above said witness. The trial Court has rightly held that the defence version was more probably as compared to the complainant’s story. It is also admitted on record that matter regarding receipt of burn injuries by Pritam Kaur was investigated by senior police officers and it was concluded that it was a case of catching fire by accident. Large number of residents of the village have deposed in favour of the respondents, stating that version given by them was correct. Even in cases where two views are possible, ordinarily, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted. 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 Criminal Misc. No.27-MA of 2009 7 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 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.” There is no misreading of evidence on record. Findings given by the trial Court are as per evidence. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 25.03.2009 (Jora Singh) gk Judge