Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.152 of 2008 Date of decision: 2.9.2009 Makhan Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.S.S.Sodhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Godara, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Rohit Khullar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ... JORA SINGH, J. Makhan Singh filed this revision to impugn the order dated 25.9.2007 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala, in FIR No.50 dated 28.6.2006 under Section 306 IPC registered at Police Station Panjokhra. Vide this judgment, Simranjit Kaur widow of Inderjit Singh (deceased) was acquitted of the charge levelled against her. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Inderjit Singh (deceased) was married with respondent No.2. On 27.6.2006 at about 11/11.45 PM, Karnail Singh (PW7) heard a noise in the street and then noticed that Inderjit Singh was lying in front of his shop. Motorcycle of Inderjit Singh was lying near him. Inderjit Singh on enquiry disclosed that he had consumed some poisonous substance on account of harassment by his wife. Sukhwinder was directed to inform the Sarpanch. Karnail Singh had gone to inform the parents of Inderjit Singh. Father and brother of Inderjit Singh came to the spot. Gurmeet Singh, Sarpanch, also came to the spot. Inderjit Singh was Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 2 shifted to the hospital, but on the next day, i.e., 28.6.2006, Inderjit Singh had died while lying admitted in the hospital. Intimation was given to the police. Inquest report was prepared and the dead body was handed over for postmortem examination. After completion of investigation, challan was presented. Accused was charged under Section 306 IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 18 witnesses. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. She denied all the allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that Inderjit Singh was humiliated by his father Makhan Singh, who is the complainant in this case. Inderjit Singh was under depression. On account of ill treatment by Makhan Singh, Inderjit Singh had consumed some poisonous substance. To save himself, Makhan Singh concocted the story. In fact, Makhan Singh was responsible for the death of Inderjit Singh. Makhan Singh had a grudge against her because she had filed an application to the Police against him (Makhan Singh), his wife and son. Makhan Singh had tendered apology and gave an assurance that neither he nor his family members will interfere in the life of Inderjit Singh and his wife (respondent- accused). In defence, HC Ramesh Kumar (DW1) was summoned with record. Document Expert N.K.Jain was also examined as DW2. After hearing learned PP for the State and learned defence counsel and from the perusal of evidence on the file, learned trial Court opined that prosecution story was not natural one. Resultantly, benefit of doubt was given to the accused and she was acquitted of the charge levelled against Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 3 her. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 25.9.2007, revision was preferred by Makhan Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that evidence on the file was not properly scrutinized by the trial Court. Karnail Singh (PW7) stated that he had gone to the spot where Inderjit Singh was lying. On an enquiry, Inderjit Singh replied that he had consumed some poisonous substance due to harassment by his wife. Gurmeet Singh, Sarpanch, also stated that Makhan Singh, father of Inderjit Singh, came to the spot and on enquiry, Inderjit Singh replied that he has taken poison on account of harassment by his wife. Cause of death was found to be due to aluminum phosphide. Manjit Singh (PW11), brother of deceased, also stated that Inderjit Singh had committed suicide by consuming poison on account of indifferent attitude of his wife. Makhan Singh (PW11), father of the deceased, also stated that Inderjit Singh was not having cordial relations with his wife. Inderjit Singh and his wife were separated. After separation, Simranjit Kaur demanded one more room. On the request of Simranjit Kaur, second room was also given. He had gone to the spot where Inderjit Singh was lying and on enquiry, Inderjit Singh replied that he has consumed some poisonous substance on account of harassment by his wife. Death was unnatural due to poison. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-accused argued that no doubt death was unnatural but the deceased had some altercation with his father. Respondent-accused had given an application to the police against Makhan Singh and before police, Makhan Singh admitted his guilt and had tendered apology. Inderjit Singh was under depression. Respondent-accused Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 4 used to sit on the shop with Inderjit Singh so that there is no attempt to commit suicide by Inderjit Singh. After admission of Inderjit Singh in the hospital, the doctor enquired from the attendants and the deceased. Reply of the deceased and attendants was that some poisonous substance was consumed by mistake. So evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on file and am of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Trial Court in para No.19 of the judgment has discussed the deposition of Makhan Singh (PW17) as under:- “19. Makhan Singh (PW17) is the complainant and the father of the deceased Inderjit Singh. He has deposed that he has retired from BSNL from the post of Phone Mechanic. He was having three sons and two daughters. Out of whom, the eldest son is Manjit Singh (PW11) and younger to him was Inderjit Singh (since died). He has further deposed that his son Inderjit Singh was running a Karyana shop in village Tundli. Two years prior to the occurrence Inderjit Singh was married with accused Simaranjit Kaur daughter of Charanjit Singh, resident of Shahbad (Kurukshetra). From this wedlock one boy was born, namely, Akam. He has also deposed that his son Inderjit Singh and Simaranjit Kaur have strained relation from the very beginning of their married life. Due to this, PW17 separated his son Inderjit Singh and gave him a separate room. After said separation accused Simaranjit Kaur demanded one more room and on her request PW17 then has given one more Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 5 room to them. Thereafter, they were leading their life as per their taste. From 17.6.2006 Simaranjit Kaur also started sitting on the Counter of the Karyana shop of Inderjit Singh. On 21.6.2006 Inderjit Singh and accused Simaranjit Kaur had gone to Shahbad at the paternal house of accused. On 27.6.2006 in the morning at about 10 a.m. accused Simaranjit Kaur returned to her residence and kept on packing her clothes, etc. In the evening her brother Mani visited the house and she returned back with her brother to Shahbad. Thereafter, on the same night one Karnail Singh, resident of village Tundli came to the house of PW17 and informed that his son Inderjit Singh is lhying on the road in front of the shop of Inderjit Singh at Tundli and that he has consumed some poisonous substance. PW17 then visited the shop of his son Inderjit Singh and found him lying in front of the shop. On the asking of PW17, Inderjit Singh stated that on account of harassment given by his wife, he has consumed the poison. Thereafter, PW17 shifted Inderjit Singh to a private hospital on motor cycle driven by Manjit Singh. However, Inderjit Singh died in the hospital after about an hour. Police visited the hospital in morning and statement of PW17 was recorded. Thereafter, on 30.6.2006 PW17 visited the shop of his son Inderjit in the company of police from where one copy and two pocket diaries written under the handwriting of Inderjit Singh were taken from the shop by the police in his presence. A seizure memo (Exh.PX) to that effect was prepared and was duly attested by PW17. On 12.7.2006 Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 6 another copy was recovered by the police and taken into possession vide seizure memo Exh. PB, which also bears the signature of PW17 as an attesting witness.” Ex.PM is the treatment record of Inderjit Singh (deceased). Inderjit Singh was shifted to J.P. Hospital, Ambala City, by his father Makhan Singh and brother Manjit Singh. They disclosed to Dr. J.P.Gupta (PW12) that Inderjit Singh has consumed some poisonous substance by mistake and this fact was duly mentioned at page 2 of treatment record (Ex.PM). Page 2 of the treatment record was also signed by Makhan Singh and Manjit Singh. On page 4 of Ex.PM, Dr. J.P.Gupta (PW12) has specifically mentioned that patient has given history of taking sulfas by mistake. Immediately after the occurrence when Inderjit Singh was shifted to the hospital, then father and brother of Inderjit Singh reported to the doctor that Inderjit Singh has consumed poisonous substance by mistake and requested to treat the patient. So, Ex.PM falsifies the prosecution story. An effort was made by the prosecution to connect the respondent accused with the crime as per suicide note, but the suicide note seems to be not natural one on account of cuttings, interpolations and space/size between the words. In para No.28 of the judgment, trial Court rightly ignored the suicide note as a genuine document. Another attempt was made by the prosecution to connect the respondent accused with the crime by producing one audio cassette (Ex.P3). But the audio cassette was also ignored by the trial Court because the respondent accused had already made a complaint against father of the deceased and there was a settlement on 19.4.2006. Occurrence is dated 27.6.2006. No evidence is on file that deceased was not having cordial relations with his wife after 19.4.2006 till Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 7 27.6.2006. In paras No.32 and 33 of the judgment, trial Court rightly ignored the statement of Karnail Singh (PW7) by observing as under:- “32. The witnesses of the occurrence are Karnail Singh (PW7), Gurmeet Singh (PW8), Manjit Singh (PW11) & Makhan Singh (PW17). It has already come in discussion that PW17 is the complainant and happens to be the father of deceased Inderjit Singh whereas PW11 is the brother of deceased. Deceased was running a “Kiryana” shop, which he has taken on rent from the brother of PW7 and PW7 himself was residing in the adjoining premises of said shop. The shop was in the area of village Tundli whereas the residence of deceased and his parents was at village Barnala. However, both these villages are the adjoining villages at a distance of about three kilometers and PW11 has admitted that it has taken them only ten minutes from reaching the shop of Inderjit Singh from their house on hearing the news of this occurrence. PW7 was also having old acquaintance with PW17, i.e., father of deceased I nd er jit Singh and he had attended the marriage of Inderjit Singh also at the house of PW17. PW8 is the Sarpanch of the village where deceased was running the shop. He was also having old ties with PW17 as PW17 himself was previously residing in the village of PW8. Thus, out of these four witnesses, two are the family members of deceased whereas the remaining two are also having well acquaintance with the father of the deceased for a number of years prior to the present occurrence. Therefore, none of these witnesses could be called as Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 8 independent witnesses and their deposition requires close scrutiny. 33. Karnail Singh (PW7) has admitted in the cross- examination that he was acquainted with Makhan Singh (PW17), father of the deceased Inderjit Singh, for the last 4-5 years and that he had never heard about any dispute between father of Inderjit Singh and Simranjit Kaur. There is, however, a complaint (Exh.D1) dated 25.03.2006 on record to show that there were differences between Inderjit Singh and Simranjit Kaur. Similarly, PW7 has admitted that Inderjit Singh has never disclosed him regarding his differences with Simranjit Kaur. It means that there were actually no differences between accused Simranjit Kaur and her husband Inderjit Singh as if had there been any such differences, Inderjit Singh must have shared them PW7 being a close neighbourer. PW7 has then admitted that his village is thickly populated and there are few shops of doctors also. The conduct of PW7, however, become very suspicious after this admission as he never bothered for shifting Inderjit Singh to any local hospital nor he called any local doctor for taking care of Inderjit Singh. Instead PW7 sent his nephew Sukhwinder Singh to call the Sarpanch of the village and he himself went on a motorcycle to call the parents of Inderjit Singh from the next village and, thus, he left Inderjit Singh unattended at the spot, which is quite unnatural on his part as Inderjit Singh was admittedly known to him very closely and no one leaves unattended a known person injured on the road. What to talk of Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 9 any care, he has admitted that he had neither brought any 'charpai' nor had taken Inderjit Singh away from said spot. Even after the arrival of the father and the brother of Inderjit Singh, when they taken Inderjit Singh on a motorcycle to hospital, PW7 not accompanied them to the hospital also. He has stated in very words that he had picked the dairy from the spot at about 6.30 a.m. prior to the arrival of the police at about 10.00 O'clock in the morning whereas Gurmeet Singh (PW8) is stating that when Inderjit was taken by his father to hospital in the night from the spot, he found a dairy, helmet and motorcycle of Inderjit Singh lying there. PW8 in this regard has further stated that he asked Karnail Singh (PW7) to take all these things to his house upon which Karnail Singh then shifted all those articles to his house in his presence and then handed same to the police in the presence of PW8 when police visited the spot at around 9.00/10.00 a.m. Like PW7, Gurmeet Singh (PW8) has also taken not much care of Inderjit Singh and kept him lying on the spot without any medical aid. PW8 also not accompanied the father and brother of Inderjit Singh to hospital when they were taking him to hospital. Despite his being the Sarpanch of the village, PW8 has not bothered for informing the occurrence immediately to the police. On account of these abnormal conducts of both these prosecution witnesses, namely, Karnail Singh & Gurmeet Singh, and contradictions in their depositions, no much reliance can be placed upon their statements. Otherwise also, both these witnesses are having old association with Makhan Singh (PW17) and on that account it Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 10 seems that they are behaving as interested witnesses, readily available at the call of PW17. It is also noteworthy that both these witnesses have not uttered even a single word regarding any instigation by the accused to her husband Inderjit Singh to commit suicide immediately prior the occurrence or creation of any such circumstance by the accused which compelled Inderjit Singh to commit suicide.” Statements of Manjit Singh (PW11) and Makhan Singh (PW17) were also discussed in paras No.34 and 35 of the judgment, respectively. The trial Court discarded the statements of Manjit Singh and Makhan Singh by observing as under:- “34. Next coming to the deposition of Manjit Singh (PW11), he has admitted in the cross-examination that his father had gone to Hemkunth Sahib (Uttrakhand), where he remained for about 8- 10 days, and had returned about a week prior to the occurrence. He has also admitted that while his father was at Hemkunth Sahib, his brother Inderjit Singh had a cutting of his 'kesh' and thereafter, Inderjit Singh was no more a 'keshdhari sikh'. He has also went on admitting that his father has an exchange of hot words with Inderjit Singh on this issue. Defence counsel has then given him specific suggestions that his father has cursed Inderjit Singh for getting his 'kesh' cut and has rebuked Inderjit Singh by saying that it would have been better that Inderjit had died instead of cutting his 'kesh' and that on account of it Inderjit Singh went in depression, but PW11 has denied all these suggestions. PW11 has also denied the suggestion that accused Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 11 Simranjit Kaur thereafter started sitting with Inderjit Singh at his shop so that Inderjit Singh may not take any wrong step under depression. PW11 also denied the suggestion that the father of Simranjit Kaur then invited Inderjit Singh and Simranjit Kaur at his house at Shahbad for a change in their atmosphere, where they both remained happy from 21.06.2006 to 27.06.2006 and it was thereafter on 27.06.2006 that Inderjit Singh came all alone from Shahbad to his shop in the morning for running his business and that there was never any dispute or confrontation between Inderjit Singh and his wife accused Simranjit Kaur. However, by putting all these suggestions, defence counsel has succeeded in putting a comparatively convincing story to the material prosecution witness and has succeeded to a great extent in the same on account of admissions of PW11 that there was an altercation between deceased Inderjit Singh and his father Makhan Singh (PW17) just a few days prior to this occurrence. 35. Makhan Singh (PW17) is the star prosecution witness. He also happens to be the informant/complainant of the occurrence. When he was cross-examined on the crucial point of his involvement in the family affairs of his son deceased Inderjit Singh and Inderjit Singh's wife, i.e., accused Simranjit Kaur, there were glaring admissions on his part that he was neither proving himself to be an ideal father nor a genuine father-in-law. He has admitted that his son Inderjit Singh was married with the accused in the year 2004. According to him, differences between the couple have come on fore after about one month of the Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 12 marriage on account of a separate residence for them. At this juncture it was the moral duty of PW17 to put a reasonable solution to the couple at the earliest, but his admission goes to show that he provided them a separate residence only after about one year of the marriage. It has come in his admission as made by him in further cross-examination that he provided one additional room to the couple only when accused Simranjit Kaur filed a complaint against him, his wife Tarlochan Kaur, his daughter Raji, his other son Manjit Singh and the wife of Manjit Singh wherein a compromise (Mark-DA) dated 19.04.2006 has arisen between them before the women cell. He has to admit that in said complaint accused has raised no allegation against deceased Inderjit Singh. He has also admitted that in said compromise they have undertaken therein that neither he nor any of his family member will make any interference in the personal life of accused and her husband Inderjit Singh and will not create any type of trouble in their life. Still PW17 has not refrain himself from passing comments upon Inderjit Singh and his son Manjit Singh (PW11) has admitted that his father has uttered curses to Inderjit Singh only few days before the occurrence. When said event was put to PW17, he not only flatly refused to admit same, but voluntarily added at his own that there was no question of cursing Inderjit Singh on account of cutting of his 'kesh' as he had not seen Inderjit Singh face to face after returning from Hemkunth Sahib. He, however, admitted that he returned from Hemkunth Sahib on 16.06.2006 and Inderjit Singh Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 13 had lived at Ambala upto 21.06.2006. Taking the statement of PW17 from any angle, his conduct was not proper if he had not shown his face to his son Inderjit Singh from 16.06.2006 to 21.06.2006 or if he had reprimanded Inderjit Singh during this period on account of cutting of 'kesh' against the sikh traditions (as admitted by PW11). It is also noteworthy that PW17 has merely admitted that he had no face to face talk with his son Inderjit Singh after his returning from Hemkunth Sahib, but he has not stated a single word that he had also no talk with Inderjit Singh on telephone or otherwise through any other person or media. PW17 has admitted in his further cross-examination that Inderjit Singh was keeping one mobile and a STD telephone facility at his 'kiryana' shop. The contradiction on this point between the deposition of PW17 and his son Manjit Singh (PW11) is sufficient to discard the deposition of both of these witnesses as one of them is telling lie and there is no magic stick with this Court to detect which of them is having a truthful version.” Another evidence on the file is that soon before the death of Inderjit Singh, respondent accused had some dispute with the deceased. Evidence rather shows that deceased was not properly maintaining his family. That is why, the respondent accused started sitting on the shop to help Inderjit Singh. Inderjit Singh was not having cordial relations with his father Makhan Singh. If there was some dispute amongst the couple, then the same cannot be a ground for abetment to suicide. Crl.Rev.No.152 of 2008 14 When two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted. As a sequel to the above discussion, I am of the opinion that no question of interference to upset the impugned judgment. The judgment is to be upset if the same is perverse and against facts. The revision being without merits is dismissed. 2.9.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE