Criminal Revision No.276 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.276 of 2003 Date of Decision 11.01.2010 Ajit Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Ramji Lal and others ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This is a revision petition, preferred by the complainant- petitioner (herein referred as 'the complainant') against the judgment dated 25.11.2002, passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul, acquitting the accused- respondents (herein referred as 'the respondents') of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Ajit Singh-complainant, resident of Village Rampura, had three sisters, who were already married. His father Budh Ram had also three brothers, out of whom Budh Ram was the eldest. Next to him was Har Lal and they were followed by Ganeshi and Ramautar. All of them were living separately. Budh Ram had purchased 100 bighas of land in village Kaujhi- ki-seed, Tehsil Falodi, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan) in which his uncle Ganeshi had ½ share. On 19.07.1999, Budh Ram had gone to village Kaujhi-ki-seed to look after the land. After returning from there, he has been staying at village Rampura for about one and a half months prior to his death. On 11.11.1999, he had gone to village Sultana to condole the death of father-in-law of Santosh, (the elder sister of Ajit). He returned from there at about 3:00 p.m. On 12.11.1999, at about 6:00/6:30 p.m., Budh Ram took his meals and went to sleep in the baithak (sitting room) which abuts the public passage. At about 10:00/10:15 p.m., Mishri, mother of the complainant, who had gone to sleep in the tin-shed, got up and went to the baithak (sitting room). As soon as entered the room, she saw Budh Ram lying with injuries on the cot, then she raised hue and cry. She awakened the complainant Ajit Singh. Then the complainant rushed to see his father Criminal Revision No.276 of 2003 2 and tried to talk to him but he did not speak. He informed his uncle Ganeshi about the occurrence and with his help he took him to General Hospital, Narnaul, but he had already died. On receipt of the ruqa, case was registered at Police Station Narnaul. Ultimately, after investigation, the challan was presented against the accused-respondents. On finding a prima facie case against them, they were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, examined 18 witnesse. Munshi Ram, District Inspector had died before he could appear in the witness box. Sub Inspector Kurda Ram (PW1) after receiving the ruqa from General Hospital, Narnaul, regarding the arrival of the dead body of Budh Ram had gone to the General Hospital, Narnaul, where he recorded the statement of complainant, made his own endorsement and sent the same to the police Station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. PW2 Head Constable Om Parkash, PW3 Constable Kamal Kishan, PW4 Constable Chhote Lal, PW5 Constable Ram Kishan are formal witnesses. PW6 Mahesh Kumar,draftsman, prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, PW7 Sub Inspector Vikram Singh prepared the challan against the respondents on 27.12.1999. PW8 Constable Amardeep took photographs of the place of occurrence, PW9 Dr.K.K.Yadav conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Budh Ram on 12.11.1999 at General Hospital, Narnaul. PW10 another Budh Ram is a witness who saw Ramji Lal, Subhash Chand and Kalu Ram accused entering the house of deceased Budh Ram at about 9:00/9:30 p.m. on 11.11.1999 and also saw coming them out of the same after 15/20 minutes, PW11 Ajit, son of the deceased, is the complainant, PW12 is the witness to the interrogation of the accused Narender @ Kalia with regard to the recovery of Kulhari, PW13 Rameshwar Dayal is the witness to the recovery of blood stained earth and cover of quilt. PW14 Sumitra wife of complainant is the witness who over heard Ramji Lal and Subhash talking in the street at about 9:30 p.m. on 11.11.1999. PW15 Sh.Ashwani Kumar, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, had recorded the statement of PW Sube Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 01.12.1999. PW16 ASI Safudeen recorded the formal FIR on receipt of statement of complainant on 12.11.1999 at about 1:40 p.m. PW17 Madan Criminal Revision No.276 of 2003 3 Gopal took the truck No.HRM-3251 on supardari on the strength of power of attorney given to him by accused Ramji Lal son of Devi Sahai. PW18 Head Constable Ajesh Kumar, who was associated with Munshi Ram Inspector, identified his signatures on various documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. Ultimately, the trial resulted into acquittal. The star witness examined by the prosecution is Sube Singh, whose statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. However, he did not support the prosecution case. Coming to the statement of PW11 Ajit Singh, nothing has been proved by him with regard to the illicit relations of Kalu and Bablu with Koyali daughter of Har Lal, (uncle of the complainant). He is not an eye witness to the occurrence. His statement, being hearsay, is of no consequence. Recoveries have also not been duly proved. The prosecution had mainly relied upon the testimony of Budh Ram, if his testimony is believed then some inference against the accused could be drawn. PW10 Budh Ram stated that on 11.11.1999 at about 9:00/9 :30 p.m. he saw a truck stopping in front of the house of deceased and three persons got down from the same, who were Ramji Lal, Subhash Chand and Kalu Ram. According to him, they entered the house of deceased and came out after 15-20 minutes but this witness cannot be believed as during his cross-examination, he himself appeared in the police station after 27 days of the occurrence to make statement. His silence for 27 days over the issue stands unexplained. Though, Budh Ram has claimed that thrashing floor is in front of the house of the deceased but site plan Ex.PH speaks to the contrary that there is no threshing floor in front of the house of Budh Ram. The evidence reveals that on the western side of the house of Budh Ram (deceased), there is periphery and across that periphery there are dung-pits and after the dung-pits, there is agricultural land of Bhola Ram ex-sarpanch. In the north of the house of Budh Ram, there is plot of Ramautar, a brother of the deceased and thereafter there is plot of deceased himself. Similarly, no threshing floor has been shown on the northern side of the house of Budh Ram. Investigating Officer has not been examined in the case, therefore, Criminal Revision No.276 of 2003 4 many material documents remained unproved. The trial Court appears to have taken right view of the matter, suggesting no interference by this Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 11.01.2010 mamta-II