Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.5.2009 Ram Chander …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Ram Chander, complainant of case FIR No. 423 dated 4.8.2006 registered at Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad, under Sections 302, 201 & 34 IPC. In the FIR, two persons, namely Sandeep Kumar, respondent/accused, and Ram Kumar were nominated as accused on basis of suspicion. Ram Kumar being juvenile faced trial before the Juvenile Justice Board, whereas Sandeep Kumar was tried by the Court of the Sessions Judge, Fatehabad. The Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide his judgment and order dated 3.10.2008, had acquitted Sandeep Kumar, whereas Ram Kumar has been convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board. Ram Chander, complainant, appeared in Police Station Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2009 2 Fatehabad, on 4.8.2006 at 1.15 P.M. In FIR Ex.P30, Ram Chander, complainant, stated that he is resident of village Ayalaki and has got three sons and two daughters. Eldest is Amit and thereafter two daughters namely Saroj and Roshni and two younger sons namely Sant Lal and Kalu. He stated that yesterday (3.8.2006) at about 4.30 P.M. he was present in the house along with his wife, son Amit and other children. At that time, Ram Kumar alias Bittu and Sandeep Kumar son of Ram Kishan, came to his house and told Amit to accompany them to the fields for savouring guavas and also to bring guavas for home. Amit had not returned. Therefore, Ram Chander went to the house of Ram Kumar alias Bittu and Sandeep Kumar where he was told that Amit Kumar had gone to Alipur Brota. Since there was no relations or acquaintances in Alipur Brota, complainant become suspicious and along with their relatives Chander Bhan and Banwari started searching for Amit. When they reached near tube-well towards a room which was lying closed for some time. They found drag marks and trampled cotton. They went inside the room and found that in the well of tube-well, a body was lying which was found to be that of Amit, son of the complainant. A suspicion was made in the FIR that due to previous dispute, Amit may have been murdered by Ram Kumar alias Bittu and Sandeep. FIR was investigated. Since this was not a case of eye witness, prosecution relied upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the evidence can be stated as under:- a) Medical evidence to the fact that deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and there was ligature mark on the neck of the deceased Amit. Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2009 3 b) In pursuance of disclosure statement, accused had got the rope recovered. The rope of nylon was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.P31. c) Deceased Amit was last seen in the company of accused Ram Kumar and Sandeep by Mahender Singh PW.7 and Ram Chander, complainant, PW.12. d) Accused made extra judicial confession before PW.8 Hawa Singh and PW.9 Sohan Lal. They have not supported the prosecution and they have been declared hostile. The record of trial Court was requisitioned. With the assistance of Mr. Mamli, I have read the FIR and have read the testimony of witnesses. Mr. Mamli has made the following submissions:- Firstly, it has been submitted that evidence of last scene, motive and medical evidence coupled with recovery of rope in pursuance of disclosure statement are sufficient to infer that accused/respondent Sandeep is guilty of the offence. Secondly, it has been submitted that since the Juvenile Court has convicted the co-accused, therefore, that in ipso-facto should be construed to assume guilt of the acquitted accused/respondent. Both the arguments are fallacious and they are rejected at the first instance. For appreciating case of circumstantial evidence, the Courts have always held that chain of circumstances should be complete to Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2009 4 arrive at an inescapable conclusion that nobody else could have committed the offence except the accused only. Since the witnesses of extra judicial confession have not supported the prosecution, thus, this inference, cannot be drawn. Furthermore, PW.7 Mahender Singh who stated regarding last scene, is cousin of Ram Chander, complainant- father of Amit. It has come in evidence that Ram Chander, complainant, was having a dispute over land with the accused and earlier thereto he had lodged one FIR against Mahabir and seven others for kidnapping Amit. During cross-examination, PW.12 Ram Chander has specifically stated that he was told by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that his son Amit had been murdered by Sandeep Kumar and Ram Kumar. This fact was told to him on the next day of occurrence i.e. 4.8.2006 at 7.00 A.M. before recording of the FIR. Therefore, the very basis for proceeding in the one manner only was provided by the police and not due to any knowledge on the part of the complainant. Secondly, the Court has to infer guilt or innocence of the accused on basis of the evidence which is led before the Court and not from the findings or from the evidence which has been led before any other Court (i.e. Juvenile Justice Board). Counsel for the petitioner is unable to state as to how judgment of Juvenile Justice Court can be relevant without taking recourse to provisions of Section 40 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. What is the evidence led before the Juvenile Justice Board cannot be considered by another Court where the accused is tried. Having noticed the arguments and the evidence led, it will be also necessary to take into consideration the findings of the trial Court. Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2009 5 Trial Court held that statements of Ram Chander Ex.P25, Ex.P26 & Ex.P27 are inadmissible in evidence as they are hit by Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. Since in Court, witnesses have not supported the prosecution, their statements recorded by the police are not substantive piece of evidence and rightly they have been ignored by the trial Court. The trial Court had appreciated the evidence and had returned the findings which cannot be held to be perverse. The State has opted not to file appeal. In the revision against acquittal, parameters for causing interference are limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment rendered in Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352) has laid the parameters as to when in revision against acquittal, interference can be caused. Similar view was reiterated by Hon'ble apex Court in Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444. Again, Hon'ble apex Court, in Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 181, held that it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it has been invoked by a private complainant. In Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1574 and in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907, the High Court has been reminded of its very limited jurisdiction in revision against acquittal. It is well settled that unless any legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of trial or patent illegality is pointed out, the revisional Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2009 6 Court will not interfere. No interference is warranted in this petition and, hence, the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 25, 2009 “DK”