Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 Date of Decision: 11.2.2009 Maya Kaur …Petitioner Versus Sombir and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karanbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.6-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Maya Kaur wife of Duli Chand has filed Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2001 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby respondents No.1 to 5 were acquitted in case FIR No. 391 dated 22.10.1997, registered at Police Station Tosham, under Sections 304-B, 498-A & 201 IPC. Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, on instructions from Karanbir Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has stated that against the judgment of acquittal, no appeal has been filed by the State. Briefly stated a typed application Ex.PA was submitted by the Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 2 complainant to the Station House Officer, Police Station Tosham, District Bhiwani wherein she stated that she had given birth to six sons and five daughters. The youngest daughter Guddi alias Kamla Bai was married on 31.5.1995 with respondent No.1 Sombir and they had spent on the marriage according to their capacity. She further stated that amount spent on marriage was Rs.1,50,00/-. It was further averred therein that the in-laws of her daughter, husband Sombir, elder brother of the husband Billu, younger brother of the husband Chandi, father Jaipal and mother of the husband were not happy and they used to illiterate her daughter for bringing more dowry. It was further averred that her daughter used to visit her parental village Gobindpura, she used to share her grievances with her mother, father Duli Chand and brothers Chottu Ram and Raghbir Singh. They stated that in-laws were demanding buffalo, a chaff-cutter and coloured television. On various occasions, Panchayat was taken but accused/respondents did not relent. On 19.10.1997 when son of the complainant Chottu Ram had gone to village Kharkari Jhanvari to ask for the welfare of his sister then he learnt that on 12.10.1997 his sister was killed by administering poison and she had been cremated. This typed complaint is dated 22.10.1997. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The accused/respondents were charged for offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A & 201 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It will be pertinent to mention here that respondent/accused Chand Ram was placed in column No.2 and he was summoned under Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 3 Section 319 Cr.P.C. by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, to stand trial on 16.11.1998. Prosecution examined Maya Kaur as PW.1. She reiterated the version given by her in the written complaint. During cross-examination, she admitted that her another daughter Sheela is married in village Tosham with Ganga Ram who has a brother named Tek Ram. She further admitted that distance between Tosham and Kharkhari is 4 Kms. She was confronted with portion of testimony with written complaint Ex.PA. She also admitted that application Ex.PA was got typed in Bhiwani. She further admitted that deceased was having advance stage of pregnancy. To corroborate her testimony, her son Chhotu Ram, brother of the deceased, appeared as PW.7. He corroborated the testimony of PW.1 Maya Kaur. He further stated that his signatures were obtained by the police on written papers. He was confronted with statement Ex.DA wherein it was recorded that his sister had died by administering poison by the accused. Prosecution also examined Ram Kumar, Patwari, Halqa Kharkhari Makhwan-I, as PW.2. He prepared the site plan. PW.3 Om Parkash, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.4 Sunil Kumar, Constable, PW.5 Suresh Kumar, Constable, and PW.6 Mahender Singh, Constable are regarding link evidence and are formal witnesses. Jagdish Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, PW.8 and Jai Kishan, Sub Inspector, PW.9, had investigated the case. Thereafter, prosecution had closed its evidence. Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 4 The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Devi Lal alias Billu has stated as under:- “I am innocent. Guddi was in advance stage of pregnancy. She complained pain in her stomach. Then, Reshma, a mid-wife of our village, was sent for but she showed her helplessness in handling the delivery case of Guddi. Thereafter, she was brought to the nursing home of Dr. Om Parkash Goel at Tosham. He advised us to take Guddi to Vandna Nursing Home, Bhiwani. Accordingly, Guddi was brought to Vandna Nursing Home at Bhiwani. Blood was to be transfused to Guddi and there was no arrangement of blood and no blood was available in Vandna Nursing Home. The doctor advised that Guddi should be taken to General Hospital, Bhiwani. Thereafter, she was taken to General Hospital, Bhiwani and on way to General Hospital, Bhiwani, Guddi died. Thereafter, the parents of Guddi were informed about her death and on information, Chhotu and Raghbir, brothers of the deceased, along with 2/3 persons came to our house and they were satisfied about the natural death of Guddi. They also participated in the cremation. After due deliberation, this false case was registered against Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 5 us”. Version given by Devi Lal was reiterated by accused Sombir, Chandbir alias Chandi and Smt. Madras Devi and Jaipal. In defence, accused examined Dr. (Mrs.)Vandana Punia, as DW.1, who was running Vandana Maternity & Heart Hospital. She stated that on 12.10.1997, deceased Guddi Devi was brought with a profused bleeding having full term pregnancy and labour pains. She further stated that Guddi was severely anemic and her condition was serious and she required immediate blood transfusion, which was available only at Civil Hospital. Therefore, she was referred to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani. Dr. O.P.Goel, Goel Nursing Home, Tosham, was examined as DW.2. He also testified to the similar effect and stated that deceased was brought to his Nursing Home on 12.10.1997 and he further referred her to Gynecologist (i.e. Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Punia). Tek Ram was examined as DW.3. He is elder brother of Ganga Ram to whom sister of deceased Gudddi was married. He stated that he was informed regarding the condition of Guddi. Deceased was having full term pregnancy. He further stated that the doctor of Goel Nursing Hold told them that her condition was serious, then she was taken for expert consultation to Vandana Nursing Home and on the way to Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, Guddi had expired. He was examined to rule out unnatural death of Guddi on account of harassment, and cruelty at the hands of accused. Trial Court after examining the evidence acquitted the accused. It took into consideration the fact that there is unexplained Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 6 delay in lodging the FIR Ex.PA. A typed complaint was got lodged on 20.10.1997 especially when Chhotu Ram came to know on 19.10.1997 that deceased had expired on 12.10.1997. The Court further placed reliance upon examination of DW.3 Tek Ram. It also relied upon evidence of DW.1 Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Punia and DW.2 Dr. O.P.Goel. Besides this, the Court held that it has come in the evidence of PW.8 Jagdish Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector and PW.9 Jai Kishan, Sub Inspector that PW.7 Chhottu and other persons from the complainant side were informed and they were present at the time of cremation. Mr. Gill has stated that no reliance could be placed upon the testimony of PW.8 Jagdish Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector and PW.9 Jai Kishan, Sub Inspector. As Investigating Officers they can only give their opinion and they are not witness to the fact that PW.7 Chhotu and other family members of the deceased had attended the cremation. I am unable to accept this argument. PW.8 Jagdish Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector and PW.9 Jai Kishan, Sub Inspector had stated what they had gathered during the investigation. It is an admitted fact that deceased was having advance stage of pregnancy. Two independent witnesses DW.1 Dr. (Mrs.) Vandana Punia and DW.2 Dr. O.P.Goel had stated that on the night when the death took place deceased was brought to their respective Nursing Homes and she was having full term pregnancy and was severely anemic. Furthermore, relation of the complainant party DW.3 Tek Ram has further stated that there was no demand of dowry and deceased died on way to the hospital and she was taken to the hospital by her husband Sombir. It has been held by the Courts that even in the case of appeal against Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 7 acquittal if one view is possible, the Appellate Court will not interfere and set aside the view formulated by the trial Court in case same is not perverse. I have perused the impugned judgment and I am of the view that view taken by the trial Court is one view which can be formulated in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case State has opted not to file an appeal. It was held in Mahendra Partap Singh vs. Sarju Singh and another, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 707, relying upon D.Stephens vs. Nosibolla, AIR 1951 SC 196, as under: “only two grounds are mentioned by this Court as entitling the High Court to set aside an acquittal in a revision and to order a retrial. They are that there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. In explaining these two propositions, this Court further states that the High Court is not entitled to interfere even if a wrong view of law is taken by the Court of Session or if even there is mis-appreciation of evidence. Again, in Logendranath Jha v. Polajlal Biswas, 1951 SCR 676 (AIR 1951 SC 316), this Court points out that the High Court is entitled in revision to set aside an acquittal if there is an error on a point of law or no appraisal of the evidence at all. This Court observes that it is not sufficient to say that the judgment under revision is “perverse” or “lacking in true Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 8 correct perspective”. It is pointed out further that by ordering a retrial, the dice is loaded against the accused, because however much the High Court may caution the Subordinate Court, it is always difficult to re- weigh the evidence ignoring the opinion of the High Court. Again in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1963 (3) SCR 412 = (AIR 1962 SC 1788), it is pointed out that an interference in revision with an order of acquittal can only take place if there is a glaring defect of procedure such as that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case or the Court had shut out some material evidence which was admissible or attempted to take into account evidence which was not admissible or had overlooked some evidence. Although the list given by this Court is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by this Court. As stated not one of these points which have been laid down by this Court, was covered in the present case. In fact on reading the judgment of the High Court it is apparent to us that the learned judge has re-weighed the evidence from his own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the Sessions judge on almost every point. This we do not conceive to be his duty in dealing in revision Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 9 with an acquittal when Government has not chosen to file an appeal against it. In other words, the learned Judge in the High Court has not attended to the rules laid down by this Court and has acted in breach of them.” In Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2145 (V 60 C 352), Hon'ble apex Court observed as under: “This Court then proceeded to observe that the High Court is certainly entitled in revision to set aside the order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but it was emphasized that this jurisdiction should be exercised only in exceptional cases when “there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.” In face of prohibition in Section 439(4), Cr.P.C., for the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, it makes all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering re-trial. No doubt, in the opinion of this Court, no criteria for determining such exceptional cases which would cover all contingencies for attracting the High Court’s power of ordering re-trial can be laid down. This Court, however, by way of illustration, indicated the Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 10 following categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with a finding of acquittal in revision: i) Where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused; ii) Where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce; iii) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held the evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible; iv) Where the material evidence has been over-looked only (either?) by the trial Court or by the appellate Court; and v) Where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. These categories were, however, merely illustrative and it was clarified that other cases of similar nature can also be properly held to be of exceptional nature where the High Court can justifiably interfere with the order of acquittal. In Mahendra Pratap Singh, (1968) 2 SCR 287 = (AIR 1968 SC 707) (supra) the position Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 11 was again reviewed and the rule laid down in the three earlier cases reaffirmed. In that case the reading of the judgment of the High Court made it plain that it had re- weighed the evidence from its own point of view and reached inferences contrary to those of the Sessions Judge on almost every point. This court pointed out that it was not the duty of the High Court to do so while dealing with an acquittal on revision, when the Government had not chosen to file an appeal against it. “In other words” said this Court, “the learned Judge in the High Court has not attended to the rules laid down by this Court and has acted in breach of them.” Similar view was reiterated by Hon'ble apex Court in Bansi Lal and others vs. Laxman Singh, (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 444. Again, Hon'ble apex Court, in Ramu alias Ram Kumar and others, 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 181, held that it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court should not be lightly exercised particularly when it has been invoked by a private complainant. In Vimal Singh vs. Khuman Singh and another, (1998) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1574 and in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, 2002 AIR (SC) 2907, the High Court has been reminded of its very limited jurisdiction in revision against acquittal. It is well settled that unless any legal infirmity in the procedure or in the conduct of trial or patent illegality is pointed out, the revisional Criminal Revision No. 1254 of 2001 12 Court will not interfere. I find no merit in the instant revision petition to interfere while exercising revisional jurisdiction as learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity. There is no merit. Present revision petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 11, 2009 “DK”