Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 Date of Decision:May 20, 2009 Gurdev Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Respondent No. 2 was tried for an offence under Sections302, 201 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)/Fast Track court, Amritsar, in FIR No. 316 dated 16.7.2004 registered at Police Station Amritsar. . Vide impugned judgment, respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the charge framed against him. Hence, the complainant has filed the present revision petition. The prosecution case, as noticed by the trial court in para 2 of its judgment is as under:- “Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Mukhtiar Singh was father of Gurdev Singh PW4. In the evening of 15.6.2004 at about 8.30 P.M. he had left for the fields where tube-well was situated in the area of village Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -2- Fatehabad. His grand son Sukhbir Singh was also present at the tube-well. Sukhbir Singh son of complainant Gurdev Singh returned home at about 10.30 P.M. and told that Mukhtiar Siongh was at the tube-well. Gurdev Singh and others started searching for Mukhtiar Singh next day and was lodged in police post Fatehpur stating therein that Mukhtiar Singh was missing. Mukhtiar Singh remained untraced till 16.6.2004. In the evening Gurdev Singh lodged another report with the police wherein he stated that on 17.6.2004 at about 10.30 A.M. he suddenly noticed that dead body of his father was lying in the maize field belonging to him. On seeing the dead body of his father he was perplexed. In the meantime, Shangara Singh Numberdar, Manohar Singh s/o Banta Singh, Ajit Singh s/o Jarnail Singh, Nirvail Singh s/o Gurmukh Singh residents of Fatehpur also reached at the spot. All of them noticed that dead body was badly decomposed and was in bad shape. Blood was oozing from the mouth and nose. Though the condition of the body was deteriorated, there was no visible mark of injuries. He further stated that he does not have any suspicion against any person. This statement of Gurdev Singh Ex. PG was recorded by SI Harbhajan Singh, another DDR was recorded with endorsement of SI Harbhajan Singh Ex. PK. He prepared inquest report Ex., PN. He filed application Ex. PD for conducting post-mortem on the dead body whereupon post mortem on the dead body of Mukhtiar Singh was conducted by Dr.Gurmanjit Rai who found that there was no external mark of Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -3- injury and he further found as under:- “ On dissection of chest, injury No. 1 infiltration of blood was present in the left and inframammory area was present and 7,8,9 ribs were found fractured, 4,5 and 6 ribs from right side of front of chest were found fractured. Spleen was found ruptured and about 150 CC blood was present around the region of spleen, stomach was having about 100 CC of fluid. Liver and kidneys were found congested and rest of the organs of abdomen and chest were found normal.” The injury was ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death was not immediately declared and was kept pending for report of Chemical Examiner about viscera of the deceased. According to his report Ex. PC probable time which elapsed between death and post-mortem was 24 to 48 hours. Viscera was sent to the chemical Examiner who vide report Ex. PE stated that no poison was detected in the viscera. Thereupon , Dr. Gurnamjit Rai gave cause of death due to shock as a result of injuries which was sufficient to cause death in his ordinary course of nature. Thus, it was a case of murder. During the course of investigation, Gurmej Singh complainant made another statement Ex. PH on 16.7.2004 which was recorded by SI Sarabjitr Singh, SHO, P.S.Sadar, Amritsar at 6.45 p.m.. In this statement Gurdev Singh stated Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -4- that on15.6.2004 Bhupinder Singh accused met him near a place known as Mata Rani. At that time he inquired from Bhupinder Singh as to where he was going at that time. Bhupinder Singh replied irritatingly that he will come to know shortly. At that time, Gurdev Singh did not take any note of this because accused was nearly related to his being son of brother of his rather. Subsequently, he thought about the motive and realized that Dial Singh, father of Bhupinder Singh had 6 acres of land. He had given 3 acres of land to Bhupinder Singh. Bhupinder Singh was demanding remaining land which he has not given. Dial Singh had told Mukhtiart Singh that in case he dies, 3 acres of land kept by him, be given to his daughters, but Bhupinder Singh was interest to get that land. He was keeping this grudge in mind against the father of complainant, Bhupinder Singh caused internal injuries and committed murder of Mukhtiar Singh and threw his dead body in the maize crop field. This statement Ex. PH was recorded by SI Sarabjit Singh on the basis of which FIR was registered and investigation was started During the course of investigation, Jaswant Singh PW 10 made a statement that Bhupinder Singh is cousin of his wife and made confessional statement before him. The I.O. also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence. He recorded statements of witnesses and after the completion of investigation, challan against the accused was present in the court as stated above.” Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -5- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court had erred in brushing aside the extra judicial confession suffered by respondent No. 2 before the police. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. It has been held in Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao v. Ponna Satyanarayana, 2000(3) Recent Criminal Reports 96 (SC) that in a case of circumstantial evidence, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, it was necessary to prove the circumstances fully and it was further held as under:- (i) “Circumstances should be conclusive in nature. (ii) All facts so established, should be consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt and inconsistent with innocence. (iii) Circumstances should exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. (iv) In order to justify an inference of guilt, circumstances must be incompatible with innocence of accused. (v) Cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. (vi) Where accused on being asked, offers no explanation or explanation is found to be false, then that itself forms an additional link in chain of circumstances.” Prosecution relied upon the extra judicial confession suffered by respondent No. 2 before PW-10, Jaswant Singh. Mukhtiar Singh was Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -6- murdered on the night intervening 15-16.6.2004. FIR was registered on 16.7.2004. Petitioner is alleged to have made extra judicial confession before PW-10 after one month of the occurrence although respondent No. 2 had participated in the condolence meeting with regard to the death of Mukhtiar Singh. As per the statement of Jaswant Singh-PW-10 recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 17.7.2004, the extra judicial confession had been suffered before him by respondent No. 2- Joginder Singh few days prior to the recording of his statement. However, there is no explanation as to why Jaswant Singh did not inform the police or the complainant immediately with regard to the extra judicial confession suffered by respondent No. 2 before him. Statement of Jaswant Singh was recorded by the police after registration of FIR. In normal circumstances , in case respondent No. 2 had suffered an extra judicial confession before PW-10 he would have immediately informed the police or the complainant with regard to the same and it would not have formed part of the FIR. In these circumstances, learned trial court has rightly observed that the statement of PW-10 Jaswant Singh could not be relied upon as it was not free from doubt. Learned trial court in para 9 of its judgment has, however, observed as under:- “It is also to be noted that Mukhtiar Singh was reported missing on the night of 15.6.2004. On the very next day report regarding the fact that he was missing was lodged by his son Gurdev Singh which is Ex.PA. In the normal circumstances, report regarding missing of a person is not lodged so promptly. Case of the prosecution is that Mukhtiar Singh was to go to his tube-well to sleep in the night there where his grand son Satbir Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -7- Singh was already present. He is alleged to have been way-laid about 60 karms short of the tube-well. It is not the case of the prosecution that attack was sudden and severe or that deceased was hit in the head etc. which made him unable to speak. External injuries are alleged to have been caused to the deceased. Thus deceased was in a position to raise an alarm. No alarm appears to have been raised by the deceased. Had the deceased raised an alarm, Satbir Singh who was present just nearby at the tube-well must have read the alarm of the deceased. Again the plea taken by the prosecution that Gurdev Singh had been searching for the dead body of the deceased and was unable to find him, again appears to be doubtful. The deceased was murdered at point 'A' as shown in site plan Ex.PK and dead body was lying at point 'B'. Distance between A and B is about 7 to 8 karms. Photographs attached with the file show that deceased is lying at a distance of 7 to 8 karms from the passage which the deceased was to follow for reaching the tube-well, it was not possible for Gurdev Sing to find out the dead body of the deceased at that place – had he made even a casual search for the dead body. Perusal of the photographs reveals that deceased is wearing a double shirt (shirt over shirt). This is again strange that in the month of June, people are not expected to wear double shirt. Again kurta and pajama seen wearing its without a blot. Had he been given injures by the accused while wearing these clothes, there must have some stains of the struggle on the clothes of the deceased. No stain of Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -8- struggle are seen on clothes of the deceased as he is seen wearing in the photographs. Again if the deceased was murdered at point 'A' and his body was dragged at point 'B' as shown in site plan Ex.PK, it was very easy to notice the sign of dragging of the dead body. Therefore, complainant was not expected to lodge a report with the police regarding missing of his father. Complainant was cross-examined and in cross- examination, he admitted that he was also interrogated by the police regarding murder of his father, he has also admitted that some relatives of his were posted in the police at important places at that time. It was argued by ld. Counsel and possibility of the same cannot be ruled out that murder of Mukhtiar Singh was committed by some body else and accused has been involved in a false case only to divert the intention of the investigation from the real culprits and also to tell him a lesson for not giving valuable land to the complainant abutting the road.” Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish complete chain of events which would lead to the inference of guilt of the accused and exclude the possibility of guilt of any other person other than the accused. Reasons given by the trial court while acquitting respondent No. 2 are sound reasons and call for no intereference. It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the Crl. Revision No. 1611 of 2007 -9- instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. This case does not warrant a retrial. The impugned of the trial court, thus, calls for no interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 20, 2009 PARAMJIT