Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2002 Date of Decision : 8.10.2009. Hakam Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate, Amicus-Curiae for the petitioner. Mr. DS Brar DAG Punjab. for the respondent-State. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. NAWAB SINGH J. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated October 31st, 2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby, respondents No.2 to 4 were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No. 193 dated October 1st, 1996 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code Police Station Dhuri, district Sangrur. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on September 8th, 1996, accused-respondents No.2 to 4 (for short 'respondents') along with 20/25 persons brought the dead bodies of Malkiat Singh and Balla Singh from village Ladda in a truck to their village Shahpur Kalan. They informed Sarwan Singh-complainant father of Malkiat Singh deceased that the deceased had consumed insecticide by mistake and died. Post-Mortem-Examination was not conducted on the dead-bodies because the respondents wanted to cremate them without Post-Mortem Examination. The dead bodies were cremated. 3. On September 27th, 1996, that is, after 19 days of Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2002 2 the occurrence, Sarwan Singh-complainant came to know that the respondents offered liquor to the deceased after mixing insecticide. On account of that, they died. 4. On September 29th, 1996 Sarwan Singh, Baldev Singh, Member Panchayat, Thakra Lambardar and Gurdev Singh were present in the house of Baldev Singh. Gurcharan Singh and Jagjit Singh-respondents came there and made extra-judicial confession before them begging that they should be pardoned for making the deceased to drink liquor mixed with insecticide. After making extra-judicial confession, both the respondents left the house of Baldev Singh. 5. On October 1st, 1996, that is, after two days of making the alleged extra-judicial confession by the respondents, Sarwan Singh reached the Police Station and reported the matter whereupon, First Information Report (Exhibit P-8) was recorded. 6. Motive for the crime alleged was that Harnek Singh-respondent No.4 is issueless. He was married to Mukhtiar Kaur. The couple adopted Gurcharan Singh-respondent No.1. Harnek Singh executed a Will in favour of Gurcharan Singh. Niece of Mukhtiar Kaur was married to Malkiat Singh (deceased). Gurcharan Singh and Harnek Singh apprehended that Mukhatiar Kaur may prevail upon Harnek Singh to change his Will and persuade him to execute another Will in favour of Malkiat Singh and for that reason they poisoned Malkiat Singh and Balla Singh to death. 7. It may be stated at the outset that Jagjit Singh and Harnek Singh respondents No.3 and 4 respectively were not challaned by the Police as they were found innocent. Later on, on the application filed under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure both of them were summoned to face trial along with Gurcharan Singh. 8. The entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence. The only piece of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution and discarded by the learned trial Judge was that Gurcharan Singh and Jagjit Singh made extra-judicial confession Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2002 3 before Sarwan Singh and others on September 29th, 1996. Surprisingly, Sarwan Singh did not opt to lodge the report to the Police even after the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the duo to him. He kept on waiting for two days for reporting the matter for the reasons best known to him. He also did not inform the Police when for the first time on September 27th, 1997 he came to know about the involvement of the accused in the alleged commission of the crime. The respondents No.2 and 3 were also not captured at the house of Baldev Singh particularly, when five persons were present there and they allowed them to go from there. Any prudent man would have at least tried to capture the accused when he comes to know that he was the person who committed the murder. A criminal would not make extra-judicial confession simply for the heck of it. It is only in rare circumstances that a criminal would confess his guilt of murder. Had the respondents been involved in the murder of Malkiat Singh and Balla Singh, they would not have brought the dead-bodies of the deceased to their house and that too, along with 20/25 persons of village Ladda, where the deceased allegedly consumed liquor mixed with insecticide. It appears that the evidence of extra- judicial confession before Sarwan Singh is manufactured one so, it fails to inspire confidence. 9. In view of above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment on any count which would call for the interference of this Court while exercising its reversional jurisdiction. 10. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 8.10.2009. SN