Criminal Revision No.225 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.225 of 2006. Date of Decision : 21.2.2011. Mukhtiar Kaur & another ......Petitioners Versus Gurdeep Kaur & others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Amicus Curiae, for the petitioners. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent-State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Ms. Rakhi Sharma, Advocate who is present in Court, is appointed Amicus Curiae. 2. This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated October 19th, 2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby, respondents were acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No.210 dated July 30th, 2003 under Sections 302 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur. 3. Prosecution was launched on the application dated May 27th, 2003 filed by Mukhtiar Kaur and Tej Kaur both sisters, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur alleging that their brother Dalbara Singh died on May 3rd, 2005. On May 21st, 2003 respondents murdered Dalbara Singh's wife Harbans Kaur as Gurdip Kaur-respondent was concubine of Dalbara Singh and she wanted to usurp his property. 4. Dr. R.P. Jindal (PW-1) conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Harbans Kaur and found that there was no external injury nor any ligature mark on her dead body. On the basis of report of Chemical Examiner, the Doctor opined that she died on account of consuming chloro compound insecticides. He Criminal Revision No.225 of 2006 2 proved the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit P-1). 5. Indisputably, there is no eye witness account in this case. Mukhtiar Kaur's statement, if read incisively, suggests that except suspicion that respondents murdered her brother's wife, she had no evidence to prove their involvement in the crime. She also deposed that it was her belief that Gurdip Kaur wanted to usurp the land of her deceased brother. It is settled law that suspicion alone, howsoever strong it may be, cannot be substituted for proof. An overall view of the evidence and circumstances in this case does not even raise a strong suspicion against the accused. 6. The trial Judge correctly marshaled the facts and circumstances and rightly acquitted the respondents. 7. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Thus, the revision is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 21.2.2011. SN