CRM-A No. 134-MA of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A No.134-MA of 2011 Date of decision:- 09.05.2011 Sarabjit Kaur ....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr.A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J. The accused-respondent Nos.2 to 9 (herein referred as 'the respondents') were put to dock at the instance of appellant-Sarabjit Kaur wife of Jagroop Singh (deceased), but they were acquitted vide judgment dated 04.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. Tersely put, the prosecution case is that on 12.10.2006 appellant-Sarabjit Kaur appeared before S.I. Ravinder Singh, SHO, Police Station Baghapurana and disclosed that about 5-6 days prior to 11.10.2006, all the respondents had conspired with each other to murder Jagroop Singh. On 11.10.2006 at about 6.00 P.M., while executing the conspiracy, the respondents No.2 to 8 succeeded in abducting him. On the aforesaid statement, a case was registered against the respondents on 12.10.2006. After a lot of search, the dead body of Jagroop Singh was recovered from the canal CRM-A No. 134-MA of 2011 2 in the area of village Upoke. The case was investigated and ultimately, the respondents No.2 to 9 were challaned under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 120-B IPC. During trial, the prosecution examined Sarabjit Kaur- complainant (PW-1), Dr. Navraj Singh (PW-2), Jagjit Singh, brother of the complainant (PW-3), Parminder Singh (PW-4), Dhanna Singh (PW- 5), SI Ravinder Singh, SHO (PW-6), Vishnu Bhagwan (PW-7), Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-8), HC Ved Parkash (PW-9). On closure of the prosecution evidence, the respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. In defence, they examined Rajesh Kumar (DW-1), HC Suleman (DW-2), Phool Mittal (DW-3), Sarabjit Singh (DW-4) and Manjinder Pal Kaur (DW-5). The trial resulted into acquittal. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, the same appears to be well founded and well reasoned. The story set up by the complainant is that all the respondents had told her husband Jagroop Singh (deceased), to settle the terms with regard to payment of more price of land with Harpal Kaur, failing which he would be damaged. The aforesaid part of the statement of Sarabjit Kaur (PW- 1) does not inspire confidence. The case is replete with improbabilities and concoctions. It is not believable that so many persons would come in the house of the deceased to raise demand of more money in lieu of the land already sold by Harpal Kaur. In any case, if they had threatened the deceased for causing him harm, why the deceased or the complainant did not initiate any action, much less file any complaint CRM-A No. 134-MA of 2011 3 regarding threats allegedly extended by the respondents. Again, the story of the complainant-appellant is that she had come to know about the kidnapping of Jagroop Singh by the respondents through the cell phone, when she contacted her husband Jagroop Singh at 6.00 P.M. on 11.10.2006. According to her, on the first call at 6.00 P.M., he responded that he had reached near village Natho-ke by bus. When he did not reach the house for about 45 minutes, then she again made a call and she heard the cries of her husband “Na Maro, Na Maro” and also voice of all the respondents who were remarking that her husband should be thrown into the car. Even, this part of her statement does not find corroboration from any source, much less the record of the telephone department has not been proved in order to prove the outgoing calls from the mobile phone of the complainant. Anyway, if she had come to know on 11.10.2006 that her husband has been kidnapped at the hands of the respondents, then she must have immediately rush to the police station but she did not do so and delayed it by one day. The next piece of evidence, over which the prosecution has placed reliance, is the death note of Jagroop Singh-deceased, which was found from the purse carried by him in his pocket and recovered at the time when his dead body was taken out from the canal water on 13.10.2006. According to the appellant, the dead body was thrown in the canal on 11.10.2006 and it was recovered on 13.10.2006. Therefore, after such a long time, this note was likely to be damaged and become illegible. Anyway, it is also amazing that if he was extended threats at the hands of the respondents, then why he would keep this death note in his pocket and would not inform about his CRM-A No. 134-MA of 2011 4 apprehension to the police. It is also noticed that Parminder Singh (PW-4), who had met the deceased at Baghapurana, had also advised him to approach the police, then what prevented the deceased from making such complaint to the police. The other piece of evidence, over which the prosecution seeks to place reliance, is the statement got recorded by the complainant-Sarabjit Kaur under Section 161 Cr.P.C., before the police, wherein it is recorded that her husband committed suicide as he was feeling harassed from the accused-respondents. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though the case under Section 302 IPC may not be proved against the respondents, yet they are guilty for abetting him (deceased) to commit suicide. In this regard, it is observed that such an argument is too difficult to be approved. We would be too hard on Shri A.D.S. Jattana for raising such an indigestible argument. It is the law of the land, but also universally recognized principle of law that the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., can be used for a limited purpose. Even otherwise, Sarabjit Kaur herself has denied having made such statement before the police. But, when her attention was drawn towards portion A to A1, then it was found that she had got recorded such fact. Secondly, this is a statement made by Sarabjit Kaur-appellant in her own favour, which cannot be used against the respondents. Thirdly, the statement made by Sarabjit Kaur before the police could be used only for limited purpose i.e. for confronting and contradicting her with her previous statement, but that could not be used against the accused-respondents as a valuable piece of evidence for connecting them with the commission of crime. Actually, the CRM-A No. 134-MA of 2011 5 respondents used this statement to contradict Sarabjit Kaur with her statement made in Court on 12.11.2006, wherein while deviating from her earlier statement with regard to abetement of suicide, set up a different story with regard to conspiracy and commission of murder at their hands. As such, the statement Ex.D1 rather reveals the contradictory statement set up by prosecution and comes to the rescue of the respondents. In view of the above, the impugned judgment sounds to the reason. Resultantly, finding no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE JUDGE 09.05.2011 ajp