Crl.R No.921 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R No.921 of 2009 Date of Decision: 1.2.2010 Vikram Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus The State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D. S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. JASWANT SINGH,J. Present revision petition has been filed by Vikram Singh, brother of the deceased Som Pal, who was neither the complainant nor any witness during the trial, against judgment dated 9.8.2008 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Patiala acquitting accused John V M and his son Joman of the charge under Sections 302/506/34 IPC. It was stated by Som Pal (since deceased) in his statement made to ASI Amar Singh on 16.9.2005 at Govt. Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh that he is a resident of village Khambar. Out of his two uncles residing at Lalru, one uncle Sehdev Singh died on Crl.R No.921 of 2009 #2# 1.9.2005 and he had come at Lalru to attend his bhog ceremony performed on 14.9.2005. The house of Brij Lal @ Pappu is situated in front of the house of his uncle and he has given his house on rent where John, Anish and one more person were residing. At about 8.30 PM, there was a noise in the street, he went out and asked the neighbours present there as to why the noise was being made. Anish, who had weapon like a knife stabbed into his left flank with intention to kill him and the other persons remarked that he should not be spared and threatened to kill him. He raised hue and cry and on hearing the same, the people gathered at the spot. Chander Ram S/o Janak Raj Sharma, Dharmender S/o Sehdev came at the spot and upon seeing them, the assailants ran away. Blood started oozing out from the stomach. Dharmender got him admitted in the Govt Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, where he is under treatment. ASI Amar Singh had reached the hospital at Chandigarh upon receiving a telephonic message and after seeking the opinion of the doctor regarding the fitness of Som Pal-injured recorded his statement. FIR was lodged on 16.9.2005 under Section 307/506/34 IPC and upon the subsequent death of said Som Pal on the intervening night of 17/18.9.2005, the offence was changed to Section 302 IPC. During the investigation, Anish Thomas was arrested on 19.9.2005 and upon his disclosure statement, he got recovered chhura used for committing murder from the place of its concealment. Respondent John and his son Joman were arrested on 26.9.2005. All Crl.R No.921 of 2009 #3# the three accused were charged under Sections 302/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Ld. Trial Court by placing reliance on the eye-witness account of Bhim Singh-PW2 (father of deceased Som Pal) fully corroborated by testimony of another eye-witness Dharmender Singh- PW3 (cousin of deceased Som Pal and son of late Sehdev) and Chanderharsh-PW4 coupled with medical evidence in the shape of testimony of Dr. Shabjyoti Sandhu-PW5, who conducted the medicolegal examination of injured Som Pal on the night of 14/15.9.2005 and deposition of Dr. Neha Gupta-PW1, who conducted the post mortem on 18.9.2005, convicted accused Anish of the murder of Som Pal, however, respondents John and Joman were acquitted of the charge. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and he has not been able to show as to how the findings of exoneration qua respondents John and Joman recorded by the ld. Trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or perverse warranting interference by this Court. From the prosecution version, it is evident that the allegations against John and Joman were that they had raised a lalkara that Som Pal should not be spared and they threatened to kill him. No role was attributed to both of them. Their names also did not find mention in the inquest report. As per PW1-Dr. Neha Gupta, no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given, however, the possibility of death occurring due to neurogenic shock caused by post Crl.R No.921 of 2009 #4# operative pain and/or complications consequent to laparatomy procedure for penetrating wound of abdomen could not be ruled out. Ld. Trial Court on the basis of the material on record gave the benefit of doubt to both John and his son Joman and we find no reason to deviate from such course. Dismissed. (Hemant Gupta) (Jaswant Singh) Judge Judge 1.2.2010 manoj