Criminal Misc.No.58265 of 2011 1 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-900-MA of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.58265 of 2011 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-900-MA of 2011 Date of Decision:07.12.2011 Amarjit Singh .....appellant Versus State of Punjab & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SARON HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the applicant **** S.S.SARON, J. Criminal Misc.No.58265 of 2011 Criminal misc.application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had filed the appeal within time. However, Registry of this Court raised certain objections and the paper book was returned. The file was, thereafter, not traceable in the Registry for a considerable period of time. It is submitted that the delay, in fact, occurred in re-filing the appeal and according to the Rules and Orders of this Court, there is no provision of granting time for re-filing the appeal. Therefore, a delay of 66 days has occurred in filing the appeal. The criminal misc.application is supported by an affidavit of Amarjit Singh, applicant. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of Criminal Misc.No.58265 of 2011 2 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-900-MA of 2011 learned counsel for the applicant, we find sufficient cause to condone the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the criminal misc.application is allowed and delay of 66 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Criminal Misc.No.A-900-MA of 2011 The applicant-Amarjit Singh, who is the complainant in the case, has filed the criminal misc.application in terms of Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.'-for short) for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24.05.2011 whereby respondent No.2-Sandip Singh has been acquitted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' -for short). Amarjit Singh, complainant-applicant on 22.04.2009 in the morning, received intimation from his sister that a dead body was lying near the road of village Jainpur. The people around the body were saying that it was the dead body of Kewal Singh son of Nath Singh. Accordingly, Amarjit Singh-complainant reached there and identified the dead body as that of Kewal Singh son of Nath Singh. Kewal Singh was the son of his brother-in-law i.e.the son of the sister of his wife and her husband-Nath Singh. There were injuries on the left ear, right eye, neck and left shoulder, both knees and both ankles of the deceased Kewal Singh. Accordingly, Amarjit Singh-complainant approached the police and his statement was recorded. In his statement, it was alleged by Amarjit Singh that he was of the belief that the murder had been committed by Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) son of Sohan Singh, Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) and Gurjinder Singh (accused No.2) and Tejinder Singh (Juvenile) sons of Jujhar Singh as there was a fight between them earlier on one or two occasions. On the basis of the statement Amarjit Singh-complainant, FIR was registered. Statement of Nath Singh, father of the deceased and Criminal Misc.No.58265 of 2011 3 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-900-MA of 2011 other witnesses were recorded. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Blood stained earth was taken into possession by the police. The accused in the case were arrested. On the disclosure statement of Joginder Singh (accused No.1) one kirpan was recovered. On the disclosure statement of Tejinder Singh (Juvenile) one baseball bat was recovered. Site plan of the place of recoveries were also prepared. During the investigation, Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) was found innocent and he was not sent up for trial and was kept in column No.2 of the police report (challan) that was filed in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court found a prima facie case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and accordingly framed charges against Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) and Gurjinder Singh (accused No.2) for having committed murder of Kewal Singh. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr.Ashutosh Chadha (PW 1), Nath Singh (PW 2) and Amarjit Singh (PW 3). Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning accused Sandip Singh (respondent No.2). In terms of order dated 08.04.2010, Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) was summoned to face trial. An amended charge was framed that all the accused committed the murder by intentionally causing the death of Kewal Singh. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution then examined Amarjit Singh-complainant (PW 1), Nath Singh- father of the deceased Kewal Singh (PW 2) and Dr.Ashutosh Chadha (PW 3) who conducted the post mortem examination of Kewal Singh (deceased). As many as 15 injuries were found on the person of Kewal Singh (deceased). In the opinion of the Board of Doctors, the cause of death was asphyxia and head injury which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. Criminal Misc.No.58265 of 2011 4 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-900-MA of 2011 Jaspal Singh (PW 4), photographer, HC Bhola Amir Singh (PW 5) and SI Gurdip Singh (PW 6), were also examined. SI Gurdip Singh (PW 6) had arrested Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) and Tejinder Singh (Juvenile). On their interrogation, Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PL that he along with his brother Tejinder Singh had seen Kewal Singh (deceased) on 21.04.2009 at about 06:00 am along with his mother in an objectionable condition. Thereafter, his mother had gone away and they had caught hold of Kewal Singh and caused injuries to him and killed Kewal Singh. He had concealed a kirpan in the 'Sarkanda' and he could get the same recovered. They had also thrown the dead body of Kewal Singh on Garshankar Road in the area of Mehatpur. Tejinder Singh (juvenile) made a similar statement that he had concealed a baseball bat about which he knew and his statement was reduced into writing. Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) got recovered the Kirpan. Its khaka Ex.PN was prepared and the kirpan was taken in possession by the police vide memo Ex.PO. Tejinder Singh accused (Juvenile) got recovered a baseball bat, which was taken in possession vide memo Ex. PQ. Motorcycle was also taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.PR. SI Bhag Mal (PW 7) was a member of the police party. SI Joginder Singh (PW 8) had interrogated the accused Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) and Tejinder Singh (juvenile) and they made disclosure statements. HC Lakhwinder Singh (PW 9) was present with SI Swaran Singh on 22.04.2009 and in his presence statement of Amarjit Singh-complainant was recorded. Inspector Swaran Singh (PW 10) recorded the statement (Ex. PA) of complainant-Amarjit Singh. Mandhir Singh (PW 11) and Baldev Singh Draftsman (PW 12) were examined. The substance of the evidence appearing against the accused was put to them in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded their Criminal Misc.No.58265 of 2011 5 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-900-MA of 2011 innocence. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record convicted Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) and Gurjinder Singh (accused No.2). However, Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) was acquitted of the offence for which he was charged. Against the acquittal of Sandip Singh (respondent No.2), the present application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. It may be noticed that Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) was declared innocent in the police investigation and was not sent up for trial. He was summoned as an additional accused vide order dated 08.04.2010, in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is not in dispute that Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) did not suffer any disclosure statement and neither was any weapon recovered from him. Besides Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) and Gurjinder Singh (accused No.2) had made extra judicial confessions before Mandhir Singh (PW 11), President of the Sikh Student Federation of Punjab State. He, in his deposition in Court, denied that they had made any extra judicial confession. There is no motive insofar as Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) is concerned to commit the murder of Kewal Singh. Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) and Gurjinder Singh (accused No.2) had motive to commit the murder of Kewal Singh, as it was alleged that Kewal Singh had undesirable relations with their mother. Jatinder Singh (accused No.1), Gurjinder Singh (accused No.2) and Tejinder Singh accused (juvenile) are the sons of Jujhar Singh, whereas Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) is the son of Sohan Singh. Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) is not shown to be related to the other accused. Therefore, there was no motive for Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) to commit the murder of Kewal Singh. The case, even, is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned trial Court has held the case to be established against Jatinder Criminal Misc.No.58265 of 2011 6 in/and Criminal Misc.No.A-900-MA of 2011 Singh (accused No.1) and Gurjinder Singh (accused No.2). Besides, they both were absconding from the house for a period of two months after the commission of the offence. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record held that the prosecution had not been able to bring convincing circumstances against the accused Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) to connect him with the case because he was not related to the mother of Jatinder Singh (accused No.1) and Gurjinder Singh (accused No.2) with whom Kewal Singh (deceased) is said to have undesirable relations. No extra judicial confession was made by Sandip Singh (respondent No.2). Therefore, we are of the view that the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court for acquitting Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) are sound and would not warrant interference by this Court. In the case of circumstantial evidence, it has to be established by the prosecution that there is a complete chain of circumstances which point only to the guilt of the accused and that there is nothing which may show his innocence. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court for acquitting Sandip Singh (respondent No.2). Accordingly, criminal misc.application seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of Sandip Singh (respondent No.2) is declined. (S.S.SARON) JUDGE (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 07.12.2011 neenu