Crl. Rev.No.1956 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1956 of 2006 Date of Decision: 5 - 12 - 2011 Haripal Parjapat .....Petitioner v. Shiv Shankar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.H.S.Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Terminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh – respondent No.4. None for respondents No.2 and 3. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Haripal Parjapat, father of deceased Phool Chand has preferred the present revision petition against acquittal. Accused-respondents Shiv Shankar, Deep Parkash and Arun Kumar Yadav were tried in a case arising out of FIR No.173 dated 12.7.2002, registered at Police Station Manimajra under Sections 302, 304, 328, 201/34 IPC. Initially, on the statement made by Ram Want PW2, a report, Crl. Rev.No.1956 of 2006 [2] Ex.P1, in Daily Diary Register was recorded by the In-charge Police Post Mauli Jagran. True translation of Ex.P1 has been reproduced in para 20 of the impugned judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on 2.7.2005, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted. Ex.P1 broadly states that an altercation had ensued between Shiv Shankar and deceased Phool Chand. Shiv Shankar slapped and gave kick blows to deceased Phool Chand, as a result whereof he became unconscious and was taken to General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula and thereafter to P.G.I. Arun Kumar disclosed that Phool Chand had fallen from stairs. It has also come in the judgment that after Phool Chand was declared dead, he was taken to his native Village Malipur (U.P.) where dead body of Phool Chand was burried. Later petitioner entertained suspicion that his son had been poisoned and approached the police of Police Station Malipur where FIR under Sections 302, 328 IPC was lodged. The dead body was exhumed in the presence of Executive Magistrate and was subjected to autopsy at Civil Hospital, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar on 9.7.2002. The trial Judge after noticing the entire prosecution evidence formulated two questions, namely, whether the death of Phool Chand falls within the definition of culpable homicide and what was the cause of death. PW23 Dr.Navjot Tiwana stated that on 5.7.2002, one injured, namely, Phool Chand was brought at General Hospital, Sector 6, Panchkula. He was referred to the P.G.I. The injured was again brought in the hospital at Panchkula on the intervening night of 4/5.7.2002 and he was declared dead at 2.30 A.M. on 5.7.2002. The dead body was handed over to Deep Parkash, a relation of Phool Chand. The witness stated that she had not mentioned any specific injury on the head of Phool Chand and there was no Crl. Rev.No.1956 of 2006 [3] visible head injury, therefore, no dressing was done on the head of the deceased. PW24 Dr.Raj Kumar Dass, who performed autopsy on the dead body of Phool Chand stated that “no injury of any type was detected by him on the dead body of Phool Chand, both internally and externally.” He further stated that after examining the report Ex.P20 of the Chemical Examiner, no poisonous substance was found in the viscera of the deceased. The following findings returned by the trial Court are required to be noticed:- “43. .... It is wrothwhile to observe that no request was ever made by the prosecution thereafter to solicit opinion of the autopsy doctor regarding cause of death of Phool Chand. PW24 Dr.Raj Kumar Dass demolishes the case of the prosecution further by revealing in his cross-examination that not he only got the dead body properly washed before conducting post mortem he also removed hair from the dead body and had thereafter examined the dead body from head to toe. He also excluded possibility of any ante mortem fist or kick blows having been given to Phool Chand much less any such injury having led to his death. The witness concluded his cross-examination by conceding that it was a natural death.” The trial Judge further threadbare examined the evidence of prosecution witnesses and noticed that they had made numerous improvements. The Trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondent observed as under:- “53. From all that has been discussed above, it is recalled the prosecution has not been able to prove that death of Phool Chand as a case of culpable homicide. It has not been able to prove that any fatal injury was given to Phool Chand by the Crl. Rev.No.1956 of 2006 [4] accused. Rather the prosecution has not been able to prove any ante mortem injury what so ever on the person of Phool Chand. Only three witnesses are left in fray against the accused but they are un-worthy of reliance and do not inspire confidence in the Court. Resultantly the prosecution fails in proving its case against the accused facing trial beyond all reasonable doubts. Extending them due benefit of doubt, the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. ....” Thus, both the questions formulated were answered against the prosecution. Mr.H.S.Bhullar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that for death of a young man, no person has been convicted and due to the negligence of the prosecution, accused have earned acquittal by default. It is further stated that the Investigating Agency was remiss in its duty and had the Investigating Officer performed his role diligently, he would have gathered all the evidence to nail the real accused. It has been prayed by the counsel that this Court should set aside the judgment whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted and order reinvestigation of the case. In the present case, occurrence pertains to July, 2002. A period of more than 9 years has already elapsed. The accused-respondents were charged for offence under Sections 302/201 IPC. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to lead necessary evidence from which guilt of the accused could be proved. Once, the prosecution failed to prove the cause of death, the accused-respondents have been rightly acquitted. Prosecution had examined 29 witnesses. Accused-respondents have faced the trial for more than three years. Furthermore, the impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity. No premium can be granted to the petitioner in case things have Crl. Rev.No.1956 of 2006 [5] not been done, as they ought to have been done. The trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence. No patent illegality or irregularity has been pointed out. The Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a consistent view in Mahendra Partap Singh v. Sarju Singh and another, AIR 1968 SC 707; D.Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196; Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 SC 2145 (V 60 C 352); Bansi Lal and others v. Laxman Singh, (1986)3 SCC 444; Ramu alias Ram Kumar and ors. v. Jagannath, 1995 SCC (Crl.) 181; Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) SCC (Cri) 1574 and Bindeshwari Parsad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907 that High Court will not re-evaluate or re-appreciate the evidence as a revisional Court to disturb the findings of the Court below in case acquittal is based on well founded reasons. Therefore, no interference is called for. Present revision petition is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 5, 2011 JUDGE RC