Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 29.07.2009 Jagdish ....Petitioner(s) vs. The State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.M.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment dated 17.1.2009 vide which the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani has acquitted the accused-respondent No.2-Chiman Lal for the offence he was charged for on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt beyond shadow of doubt and, therefore, benefit of doubt was extended to the accused. The prosecution story, in short, is that complainant Jagdish moved an application Exhibit PO2 dated 31.5.2007 at Police Station Bawani Khera wherein it was alleged that on 2.8.2006, he had gone to his fields at about 9.00 a.m. leaving behind his mother, his son Sunil, his daugher Bebli and his wife. At about 12.00 noon, Bagrawat son of Bhikha Ram informed him in his fields that his daughter Bebli was not feeling well. He came with him on his motorcycle to his house and saw his daughter was lying on the Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 -2- cot and a large number of people had gathered there. On enquiry, he was informed that his daughter Bebli was found dead in the toilet of the house of Naresh son of Harphool. Dr.Hawa Singh son of Dharampal, who was present there told them that she had died of heart attack. Under that impression, she was cremated. Later on, there was some talk in the village that his daughter Bebli had been murdered. Accordingly, a Panchayat was convened by the complainant Jagdish and it was decided that accused Chiman Lal should swear on oath that he had not murdered his daughter. Chiman Lal-accused respondent No.2 refused to take such oath. He moved an application to the police but no action was taken. Thereafter, on 26.5.2007, while he was sitting in his house along with his son Sunil, Surta Ram son of Mai Lal, his nephew came there and told them that Amrit father of accused and his brother Trilok came to him and told that Chiman Lal had murdered Bebli @ Seema and that they should be pardoned. On the basis of the said statement of Jagdish, an FIR was registered on 31.5.2007 by Sub Inspector Raj Kumar vide Exhibit PO5. Thereafter, Sub Inspector Raj Kumar visited the spot and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Accused Chiman Lal was arrested on 2.6.2007. During the process of interrogation, he made disclosure statement, Exhibit PO3, stating that he was in love with Bebli and on 2.8.2006, when she was washing clothes, she called her to his plot. They slept on the earth and then he created a scene of love affair and in that process, throttled her and killed her. He thereafter put her body in the toilet of Naresh. He pointed out the place where the alleged murder was committed and memo. Exhibit PO4 was prepared and the site plan of the place of recovery of dead body, Exhibit PO7 and site plan of the place of occurrence, Exhibit PO8 were Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 -3- prepared. A scaled site plan Exhibit PO-1 was also got prepared from Constable Girish Kumar, Draftsman. Thereafter, challan was presented and charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused-respondent No.2. After considering the evidence produced by the parties, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the case being of purely circumstantial evidence, was not proved against the accused and gave him benefit of doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused of the charge for which he was tried. Counsel for the petitioner contends that although the case is that of circumstantial evidence but there is overwhelming evidence which goes to prove that the murder was committed by accused-respondent No.2. He refers to the extra-judicial confession so made by the accused- respondent No.2. He submits that in the light of the extra-judicial confession, the accused cannot be held to have not committed the offence. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The extra-judicial confession, if any, by the accused was before Amrit, his father and Trilok, his brother. None of the two has been produced before the trial court which would have proved the assertion of the prosecution. No other person has been examined who would have heard the discussion going on between the accused and the other two persons i.e. Trilok and Amrit. The only statement which has been pressed into service by the prosecution is that of Surta, who is closely related to the complainant and he could not be treated as a person of an independent nature nor he had stated that he had heard the three talking where the accused Chiman Lal had accepted the factum of having murdered Bebli. Further, even if the case of Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 -4- the prosecution is accepted that the extra-judicial confession was made by the accused, the said information came to the knowledge of the complainant Jagdish on 26.5.2007 when he was informed of the same by his nephew, Surta Ram, but still the complainant did not bring this fact to the notice of the police on 26.5.2007 but waited upto 31.5.2007 when the FIR was registered. It cannot, therefore, be said that the extra judicial confession was indeed made by the accused Chiman Lal. No credence, therefore, can be given to the said contention of the prosecution with regard to the extra- judicial confession. The next contention which has been put forth by the counsel for the petitioner is that the strongest evidence which goes against the accused is his disclosure statement made before the police during his interrogation. He submits that the accused had admitted during his interrogation by the police that he had an affair with Bebli and, therefore, he had called her to his plot where he created a scene of love affair and in the process throttled her. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had pointed out the place of occurrence i.e. his plot. He has further stated that on his disclosure statement, he had stated the place from where he had picked up the body of the deceased and then kept it in the toilet of Naresh. He, on this basis, submits that a person who was not conversant with the details of the facts would not be able to narrate the details in the manner the accused had disclosed to the police. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted as the evidence which is stated to be the disclosure statement Exhibit PO3 is a mere confession before the police and, therefore, cannot be relied upon at all. It is an admitted position that everyone knew that the body of the Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 -5- deceased Bebli was recovered from the toilet of Naresh. The rough site plan of the toilet was prepared by the police on 1.6.2007. The disclosure statement, Exhibit PO3, was recorded on 2.6.2007, meaning thereby that the place of recovery of the dead body was fully known to the police before hand. Thereafter, what has been shown by the accused has no relevance at all. There is nothing on record to suggest that any recovery was effected from the site of the offence. The site could not be connected with the offence as it has neither come on record that any article or belongings of the deceased were recovered from the spot, what to say of any struggle marks having been found at that place when allegedly the accused had throttled the Bebli to death. Further, if the case of the prosecution, as has been alleged, is accepted, then the body of the deceased should have had some evidence of struggle or there would have been marks present around her neck as she is alleged to have been throttled by the accused. It cannot be believed that if an able bodied girl is killed by throttling, there would be no marks of struggle on the body or on the neck. The prosecution having failed to prove the same, the story as set up by it with regard to the accused having killed Bebli by throttling, cannot be accepted. Had there been presence of any marks, the mother and other relatives of the deceased would have noticed the same and would have taken note thereof. The prosecution has further failed to prove as to how during the day time i.e. between 9.30 am to 12.oo noon when the daughter of the complainant was allegedly killed, could the accused pick up the body of the deceased from his plot and take it to the toilet of Naresh from where it was recovered. This again is a mystery in itself, which gives benefit to the accused. The next contention which has been raised by the counsel for Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 -6- the petitioner is that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and for that, again he has relied upon the disclosure statement, extra-judicial confession, apart from the motive. He submits that in his confession before the police, the accused disclosed the motive for killing Bebli. He submits that there was a love affair between Bebli and the accused who is a married man with his family and to cover up the said guilt, he had murdered Bebli. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner again cannot be accepted; firstly for the reason that the confession allegedly made by the accused is before the police which is not admissible in evidence and secondly, nothing has come on record which would suggest that there was some motive for murdering Bebli. Merely because, there was a love affair going on between Bebli and the accused, it cannot be presumed that he would have murdered Bebli. Nothing has come on record to show that there was any reason for taking such an extreme step by the accused. It has not been proved on record that Bebli was either pregnant or had threatened the accused to disclose the factual aspect which would have jeopardized his family life and it would have been a reason for eliminating the deceased. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive of the accused to prove the guilt needs to be very strong and is required to be proved with cogent evidence. The extra judicial confession and the disclosure statement which has been relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has already been discarded by this Court above and, therefore, the guilt of the accused is not proved against him in circumstantial evidence case. In order to incriminate a person, there must be an overwhelming evidence and the circumstances are required to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should be so strong and conclusive that there must be no doubt Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 -7- with regard to the innocence of the accused. Conclusion of guilt has to be fully drawn out and proved from such circumstances which are proved on record leading to the conclusion so as to show that the offence has been committed by the accused. In the present case, the said test has not been passed by the prosecution evidence. Further, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 9 months from the date of occurrence to the registration of the FIR. The admitted position, as is apparent from the application which was submitted by the complainant to the police, is that the general belief and thought was that Bebli had died because of heart attack. Since there is no evidence on record to show that there was any mark of injury on the neck of the deceased Bebli or any such hue and cry was raised at the time of cremation of the deceased, the case of the prosecution is not acceptable. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the benefit of doubt has been rightly given to the accused by the trial Court. It is a settled proposition of law that the revisional Court or the appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court unless the same are not plausible. If the findings reached at by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable and the revisional Court is not disturbed by such conclusions, the findings so recorded should not be interfered with even if it is possible to reach at different conclusions on the basis of the material on record. If two views are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence on record, it is not expected to interfere simply because the higher Court feels that it could have taken a different view in the given facts and circumstances. What is, therefore, expected of an appellate Court is that it should not interfere unless the findings as recorded by the Lower Court are perverse or the same could not be reasonably Crl.Rev.No.1115 of 2009 -8- concluded in the manner as done by the trial Court. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused-respondent. The findings recorded by the trial Court are fully justified and do not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. July 29, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE