Crl. Revision No. 2760 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2760 of 2008 Date of Decision:April 24, 2009 Sital Singh ---Petitioner versus Gurdev Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.S.S.Majithia,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Respondents were tried for an offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in FIR No. 111 dated 7.6.2006 registered at police station Shahkot vide judgment dated 7.8.2008. Respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Hence, the complainant has filed the present revision petition. Prosecution story as noticed by the trial court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- “The facts, constituting the prosecution case, are that Rajwinder Kaur was married to Lakhbir Singh son of Gurdev Singh, Crl. Revision No. 2760 of 2008 {2} accused, about 20 years back and three children, Yadwinder Singh, Mandeep Kaur and Yadharwinder Singh, were born out of that wedlock, who were all studying in the school. Gurdev Singh and Amarjit Kaur had two other sons. Jasbir Singh and Dalbir Singh. Jasbir Singh was married to Narinder Kaur whereas Dalbir Singh was married to Jaswinder Kaur. Both those ladies along with Gurdev Singh and Amarjit Kaur had been harassing Rajwinder Kaur, deceased, and had been taunting her that they are being given a lot of articles when they visit their parents whereas no such articles are being given to her by her parents and that her parents were pauper. T hose facts were being disclosed by her to her brother Sital Singh, complainant. PW1, and other members of her parental family. The complainant accompanied by his younger brother Balwinder Singh and Mohinder Singh had been coming to the accused and had been advising them not to maltreat her as they were poor persons and were not in a position to give anything to her. On 4.6.2006, it was Sunday and the deceased told the complainant on the telephone that on that day she had been severely abused and harassed by all the four accused and had been taunting that her parental relations were poor and that they are also using objectionable words against them and her husband. In order to ascertain the truth, the complainant accompanied by Virsa Singh came to the accused and had a talk with all of them. Even in their presence the accused started quarreling with the deceased and remarked that lady of bad Crl. Revision No. 2760 of 2008 {3} omen was kept for them. They tried to pacify the accused but to no effect. The deceased told that in case there was no change in the circumstances, she would consume poison on account of the harassment meted out to her by t he accused. On 7.6.2006, at about 10.00 A.M. the complainant received a message on the telephone that the deceased had consumed some poisonous substance and on account of her serious condition was admitted in Cheema Hospital, Mehatpur. When he accompanied by Virsa Singh came to that hospital, they came to know that on account of the deteriorating condition of the deceased, she had been removed to D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. When they went to that place, they found that the condition of the deceased was very serious and after some time she died. The dead body of the deceased was brought to the house of the accused and was kept at that place. After leaving Balwinder Singh, to guard the dead body, the complainant accompanied by Virsa Singh and Lakhbir Singh was proceeding to the police station to lodge a report when Onkar Singh, SI/SHO, PW8, met them on the bridge of drain in the limits of Adraman. At that place, the complainant made statement Ex.PA about all these facts before the SHO, who after making his Endst.Ex.PA/1 upon the same sent that to the police station on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PA/2 was recorded. Accompanied by the complainant, the SHO came to the place of occurrence where the dead body of the deceased was lying on a cot in the courtyard in the house of her husband. Crl. Revision No. 2760 of 2008 {4} He prepared inquest report Ex.PK in respect of the dead body and sent the same for post mortem examination, along with his application Ex.PL, through Jaswinder Singh, Head Constable, PW2 and Balwinder Singh, Constable, PW3. He inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.PM with correct marginal notes. The autopsy on the dead body was performed on the same day by Dr. Ashok Kumar, PW6, who deferred his opinion regarding the cause of death till the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, to whom the viscera of the dead body was sent. After the post mortem examination the wearing apparels found in the dead body were produced before the SHO who converted those into a parcel and sealed the same with his seal 'OS'. The sealed parcel M.O.I. was taken into possession vide a recovery memo. On the same day, all the accused were arrested. He prepared the memos of their arrest Ex.PN to EX.PQ. The chemical Examiner after the examination of the viscera of the deceased, reported vide his report Ex.PG. that chlorocompound group of insecticides was detected in the same. After the receipt of that report it was opined by Dr. Ashok Kumar, vide his report Ex.PH, that the cause of death was due to chlorocompound group of insecticides. During investigation Narinder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur were found to be innocent and after the completion thereof Gurdev Singh and Amarjit Kaur, accused, were challaned and were sent to the J.M.I,.C. For their trial as aforesaid.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that trial court Crl. Revision No. 2760 of 2008 {5} has erred in acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them. Prosecution had not been successful in proving its case. Rajwinder Kaur had died unnatural death in the house of her in-laws. Learned Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence on record observed that the death of Rajwinder Kaur was suicidal due to consumption of poison. While dealing with the aspect as to whether the respondents had abetted the commission of suicide, learned trial Judge had observed that in order to substantiate the said charge prosecution had examined only PW-1, Sital Singh-petitioner. As per the said witness, respondents use to quarrel with Rajwinder Kaur, who was married to Lakhbir Singh about 10-15 years back. DW-1, brother of Lakhbir Singh has deposed that the agricultural land had been partitioned by their father about 18/19 years back. He and his brothers were cultivating the separate parcels of land and have separate residential houses. The residential house had common walls but there were no intervening gates. The learned trial Judge has observed that Lakhbir Singh was thus, residing separately from his other brothers and father. They were also separate in agricultural work. Complainant in his cross examination has deposed that he and his brother had purchased a tractor from Lakhbir Singh. After appreciating the statement of the witnesses., learned trial Judge has observed that it was proved on record that Lakhbir Singh and his brother had purchased a tractor. Learned trial Judge has further observed that the motive on the part of complainant to make his statement against the accused is that a tractor had been purchased from Lakhbir Singh by the complainant and his brother and the price of the same had not been paid and on that account the deceased used to quarrel with them. Learned trial Judge observed that there Crl. Revision No. 2760 of 2008 {6} was no trustworthy and reliable evidence on record on the basis of which it would be concluded that respondents had abetted the commission of suicide by Rajwinder Kaur-deceased. The reasons given by the trial Judge while acquitting the respondents are sound reasons. It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. This case does not warrant a retrial. The impugned dated 7.8.2008 of the trial court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 24, 2009 PARAMJIT