Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 Date of Decision: April 27, 2009 Manjit Kaur ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Jagpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai,AAG Punjab Mr.M.K.Garg,Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 ** Sabina, J. Respondents No. 2 and 3, Jugraj Singh alias Raju and Manohar Lal, were tried for an offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) in FIR No. 9 dated 19.1.1993 registered at Police Station Zira, Vide judgment dated 16.1.2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, respondents No. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. Prosecution story in brief, as noticed by the trial Court in Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 2 paras 2 and 3,is as under:- "Prosecution story, in brief, is that FIR No.9, was registered on the statement of Manjit Kaur wife of Jagjit Singh (deceased) dated 19.1.1993 that she is resident of village Sodhiwala and her husband Jagjit Singh s/o Kehar Singh used to sell milk after collection from Zira. On 16.1.1993 at about 8/8.30 P.M. Jagjit Singh came back to his house and at that time, he was under the influence of liquor. At 9/9.30 P.M. Jagjit Singh under the influence of liquor made an effort to go out side. Jagjit Singh was requested to sleep but under the influence of liquor he had gone outside from the house and failed to return. She thought that Jagjit Singh has gone to the house of Ram Parkash s/o Sawan Mall because earlier he used to take liquor in the house of Ram Parkash but Jagjit Singh failed to return. She made an effort to locate Jagjit Singh from the house of Ram Parkash, adjoining houses and from the village but she failed to locate Jagjit Singh. On 19.1.1993, in the evening she came to know that dead body of some boy is lying in the canal minor. Then, she informed her mother-in-law Bachan Kaur and she along with her mother-in-law Bachan Kaur and Sarpanch Gurbachan Singh went towards the canal minor where the dead body was lying. On seeing the dead body, dead body was found to be of Jagjit Singh. Injuries were noticed on the forehead of Jagjit Singh who was murdered by some unknown persons and after murder dead body was thrown in the canal. Bachan Kaur was deputed to guard the dead body. Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 3 Manjit Kaur along with Sarpanch Gurbachan Singh had gone to lodge the report but near village Rataul Rohi a police party headed by Tara Singh SI met them. Statement of Manjit Kaur dated 19.1.1993 was recorded at 6.45 P.M. After making endorsement on the statement, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Then the police party had gone to the spot. Inquest report was prepared. Dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination through constable Nirvair Singh and constable Iqbal Singh. After post-mortem examination dead body was handed over to the relatives for cremation. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. 3. On 20.1.1993 place of occurrence was inspected at the instance of Gurbachan Singh. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and was transferred into a dibi tin. Dibi tin was sealed with the seal bearing impression `TS' and was taken into police possession vide recovery memo. A shirt of child stained with blood was also lifted from the spot and was sealed with the seal bearing impression `TS' and was taken into police possession vide separate memo. Moulds of foot prints were lifted and moulds were taken into police possession. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. On 7.2.1993 accused were produced by Parminder Singh Sarpanch before the Investigating Officer while present near the bus stand of village Sodhiwala. On interrogation Jugraj Singh accused suffered disclosure statement Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 4 that he has kept concealed the Kahi under the heap of cotton sticks in his house. He knew about the same and could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement was recorded. Then in pursuance of disclosure statement he got recovered the Kahi. Manohar Lal accused on interrogation suffered disclosure statement that he has kept concealed the pent and pull over underneath the chaff in a room for storing chaff. He know about the same and would get the same recovered. Disclosure statement of accused was recorded and in pursuance of disclosure statement he got recovered Pent, Jersi stained with blood from the specified place. Kahi recovered was sealed with seal bearing impression `TS' and was taken into police possession vide separate recovery memo. Pent and Jersi were also sealed with the seal bearing impression `TS'. Rough site plan of the place of recovery of Kahi, Pent and Jersi was prepared separately. After completion of investigation, accused were challaned." Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in rejecting the evidence of last seen and extra judicial confession led by the prosecution. Prosecution had been successful in proving its case. In the present case, deceased-Jagjit Singh had returned home at about 8/8.30 P.M on 16.1.1993 under the influence of the liquor. At about 9/9.30 P.M., he allegedly left the house after refusing the request to sleep. FIR in question was lodged on 19.1.1993 on the basis of the statement of the petitioner i.e. the wife of the deceased -Jagjit Singh. The Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 5 trial Court has observed that the prosecution had failed to prove any motive on the part of respondents No. 2 and 3 to commit murder of deceased-Jagjit Singh. So far as Manjit Kaur, petitioner is concerned, she had found only one injury in the face of the deceased,whereas, as per medical examination, eight injuries were found on the person of the deceased and out of these, four were on the face of the deceased,whereas, two injuries were on the neck of the deceased. It also came in evidence that Gurbachan Singh had witnessed the occurrence. The said fact was stated by PW4 Kulwinder Singh. However, the said witness was not examined by the prosecution during trial. So far as PW3 Pirthi Singh is concerned, he had allegedly seen the deceased in the company of the accused at about 10.00 P.M on 16.1.1993. However, the said witness did not bother to inform the petitioner of this fact till his statement was recorded by the police on 19.1.1993. So far as PW4-Kulwinder Singh is concerned, he has deposed that all the accused had suffered an extra judicial confession before him. The said witness has failed to give the complete details of the statement suffered to him by each of the accused. Learned trial Court has further noticed that PW4 Kulwinder Singh was not sure as to when the extra judicial confession by respondents had been made to him i.e. whether on 16.1.1993 or whether on 7.2.1993. PW5 Surjit Singh deposed that accused were interrogated on Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 6 7.2.1993 and thereafter, the recovery was effected. However, petitioner, while appearing in the witness box, deposed that clothes of the deceased were shown to her within a week of recording of her statement dated 19.1.1993. It was further observed by the learned trial Court that there was no report of the Laboratory that the deceased had taken liquor. Gurbachan Singh and Puran Singh had appeared as prosecution witnesses against Ram Parkash, father of respondents No. 2 and 3. Learned trial Court observed that there is possibility that respondents 2 and 3 have been falsely involved in this case due to party faction. It has been held in Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao vs. Ponna Satyanarayana, 2000(3) Recent Crininal 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. Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 7 (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.” The present case rests on circumstantial evidence. Prosecution is required to prove the complete chain of circumstances which lead only to conclusion regarding guilt of the accused and negates the innocence of the accused. In case of circumstantial evidence, motive gains significance. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive which would have induced respondents No. 2 and 3 to commit the murder of deceased Jagjit Singh. The alleged eye witness of the occurrence has not been examined by the prosecution. The witness before whom respondents 2 and 3 had allegedly suffered extra judicial confession also fails to inspire confidence. The witness who had allegedly last seen the accused in the company of the deceased also does not appear to be trust worthy as he did not inform the petitioner that he had seen respondents 2 and 3 in the company of the deceased while she was searching for him. Rather in the present case, prosecution case was set in motion after the dead body of deceased Jagjit Singh was recovered from the canal minor. It is unfortunate that the husband of the petitioner has been murdered. But the prosecution is required to bring home the gulit of the accused beyond reasonable doubt However, in the present case, prosecution had failed to Criminal Revision No. 190 of 2002 8 prove the complete chain of events which would lead to the conclusion that respondents No. 2 and 3 were guilty of committing the murder of Jagjit Singh. As such, the circumstances brought on record are not conclusive in nature. The reasons given by the trial Court ,while acquitting respondents 2 and 3 of the charge framed against them, are sound reasons. It has been held by the 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 instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant a retrial. A finding of acquittal, as per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge April 27, 2009 arya