Crl.Rev.No. 549 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 549 of 2007 Date of decision: 11.8.2011 Sheela Devi ......Petitioner Versus Ishwar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Hitesh Malik, Advocate for Mr.Rameshwar Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Kiranpal Singh,Advocate for Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for respondents **** SABINA, J. Respondents faced the trial under Sections 302/ 34/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in FIR No.67 dated 4.5.2004 registered at Police Station Sadar, Panipat. The trial Court vide judgment dated 17.10.2006, acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner-complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all Crl.Rev.No. 549 of 2007 2 the accused in connivance with each other had committed the murder of Rajesh (husband of the complainant). The respondents wanted to grab the share of the deceased. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that respondent No.1 is the father of the deceased, whereas, respondents No.4 and 5 are the brothers of the deceased. There was no occasion for the said persons to have committed the murder of deceased Rajesh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. The complainant, widow of deceased Rajesh, lodged the FIR in question alleging therein that her husband Rajesh had opened a shop along with accused Jatinder and Joginder. The entire investment had been made by Rajesh. ` 1,00,000/- had been handed over to the landlord towards security. Jatinder and Joginder used the income of the shop but did not hand over any money to Rajesh. Ishwar Singh, father of Rajesh, was serving with Electricity Board and was residing at Panipat but was not giving any part of his salary to his son. The relationship between the complainant and her husband was a little strained. A few days prior to the occurrence all the accused gathered at village Babail and told the complainant that she would not get any amount from the business. One suit was pending against Rajesh and he had called the complainant to the Court as a compromise was liable to be effected in the said suit on 17.1.2003. In the said suit, compromise was duly effected. The complainant told her husband that she would return back to the matrimonial home after he got money from the accused. However, at Crl.Rev.No. 549 of 2007 3 about 8.30 pm, the complainant received a message that Rajesh had met with an accident and was admitted in the Civil Hospital. When the complainant reached the hospital, she found that Rajesh had consumed some poisonous substance. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined the complainant as PW-1, Sandeep Singh as PW-2, Dr.K.L.Chopra as PW-5 and also examined the officials, who had investigated the case. The accused examined the Drug Inspector, Karnal as DW-1, Dr.Gulshan Bajaj as DW-2, Dr.Arun Sehgal as DW-3 and Jagmal Singh, Dealing Assistant as DW-5 in their defence. The parties are closely related to each other. The complainant, who is the wife of the deceased, has lodged the FIR against her father-in-law and her sister-in-laws. Accused Joginder and Jitender are the relatives of deceased Rajesh. Admittedly, the deceased was not residing with his wife. Accused Ishwar Singh, father of the deceased, was residing at Panipat. Accused Nirmala and Sunita, sisters of the deceased, were residing in their matrimonial homes at different places. The allegations of the complainant was that all the accused had entered into criminal conspiracy and had committed the murder of her husband. However, as per Ex.DA, the complainant had made a statement that there was no dispute between her or any of the members of the family of the deceased. The complainant again made a complaint Ex.DB on 5.2.2003 but did not level any allegations of criminal conspiracy against her sister-in-laws and father-n-law. It is only in April 2003, the complainant levelled allegations of conspiracy between her father-in- law and the other accused qua commission of murder of her Crl.Rev.No. 549 of 2007 4 husband. The complainant had filed a petition in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein, no allegation of conspiracy was levelled by her against her father-in-law and sisters-in-law. The complainant filed a criminal complaint against Joginder and Jatinder under Sections 302, 506 IPC qua murder of her husband. In the said petition, no allegation was levelled by the complainant against her father-in-law and sisters-in-law. Thus, the stand of the complainant was not consistent and in these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that the prosecution had failed to establish that there was conspiracy between all the accused to commit murder of Rajesh. The complainant has alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was that the accused wanted to deprive Rajesh of his share in the ancestral land belonging to accused Ishwar Singh. The land had been transferred in favour of accused Sunita and Nirmala by depriving Rajesh of his share. However, in the present case, the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case that the accused had committed the murder of deceased Rajesh. Although the deceased had died due to consumption of aluminum phosphate but there was no mark of injury or sign of struggle on any part of the body of the deceased. DW-2 Dr.Gulshan Bajaj deposed that on 18.1.1997, Rajesh was admitted in the casualty department, General Hospital, Panipat as he had consumed tablet of aluminum phosphate. At that time, he was brought to the hospital by his father Ishwar Singh. Thus, the deceased had earlier also consumed poison and was taken to the hospital by his father and was saved. In these Crl.Rev.No. 549 of 2007 5 circumstances, the possibility that the deceased had voluntarily consumed poisonous substance cannot be ruled out. Merely because the sisters of the deceased have got the land from their father does not lead to the inference that they had committed the murder of their brother. It has also come on record that the deceased was receiving the sale proceed of the crop and had paid ` 1,00,000/- towards security at the time of taking the shop on rent. It had also not been proved on record by the prosecution that Rajesh was running any firm in partnership with accused Joginder and Jatinder. Hence, the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that it was not established on record that there was any partnership in medicine business amongst the deceased and accused Joginder and Jatinder or that there was any dispute qua income from the said business. In these circumstances, accused Joginder and Jatinder had no reason to commit the murder of deceased Rajesh. The complainant took up the plea that while she was attending to her husband in the hospital, he told her that accused Joginder and Jatinder had mixed some poisonous substance in the wine and had administered the same to him. DW-3 Dr.Arun Sehgal deposed that the deceased was admitted to the hospital in conscious and restless condition. He was brought to the hospital by Rajinder Singh. Had the complainant or her brother been present at the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital, their names would have been mentioned in the medical record. The deceased was referred to PGI, Rohtak for treatment but he died on the way to Rohtak. In these circumstances, the possibility that the deceased Crl.Rev.No. 549 of 2007 6 had made any dying declaration to the complainant or her brother has been rightly rejected by the trial Court.It appears that the relations of the complainant with her in-laws were not good and she was residing in her parental home. The possibility that due to this reason the accused have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out. The reasons given by the trial Court, while acquitting respondents of the charge framed against them, are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any mis-reading of evidence on record by the trial Court which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 11, 2011 anita