Criminal Revision No. 1018 of 2005 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1018 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision : 03.03.2011 Nathi ...... Petitioner Versus Mangal and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. S.K.Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr. Ram Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner, None for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the judgment dated February 16th, 2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, he discharged the respondents in a complaint case titled Nathi Vs. Mangal and others under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Nathi – complainant (PW-1) is nephew of Cheti (deceased). Mangal, Balbir and Heti are his cousins and uncle respectively. Cheti died on April Ist, 1993. Nathi filed complaint in the Court of Area Magistrate on July 20th, 1994 averring that his uncle Cheti was unmarried and blind. The land owned by him was grabbed by the respondents by getting a civil decree in their favour. On April 1st, 1993, while he was on duty, he learnt that his uncle had died and was cremated under suspicious circumstances by the respondents. In support of his complaint, he also examined Satpal (PW-2) and Shibli (PW-3). According to Satpal (PW-2), on April 1st, 1993, he met Cheti at his house, while he was taking meals and thereafter he went to his fields. At about 3.00 PM, when he came from the fields, he noticed that Cheti's condition was serious. He went to him and noticed that froth was coming out of his mouth and Criminal Revision No. 1018 of 2005 2 .. was grasping. He tried to go to doctor but Heti – respondent stopped him saying that he had already been given medicine and would be all right. Thereafter, he learnt that Cheti had expired and cremated. On the similar lines is the statement of Shibli (PW-3). 3. Indeed, there is no direct evidence in this case. It is also an admitted fact that parties had civil litigation between them, as is born-out by documents (Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P5) placed on record by the complainant. The only evidence is to the effect that Satpal (PW-2) noticed oozing froth from the mouth of the deceased and he died and was cremated by his brother and nephews, that is, respondents. 4. No explanation worth the name has been put forth by the complainant as to why the complaint was lodged by him after a delay of more than 1 year and 3 months of the occurrence. In case, the death of Cheti was under suspicious circumstances, it was the prime duty of the complainant or any other member of the family to inform the Police , but he did not do so for the reasons best known to him. 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. It appears that complainant wanted to take the land owned by Cheti, which the respondents got by collusive decree, and when he could not succeed, he filed the aforesaid complaint in order to implicate the respondents falsely. 5. The trial Judge correctly marshalled the facts and circumstances and rightly discharged the respondents. 6. For the reasons recorded supra, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Thus, the revision is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 03.03.2011 som