Crl. Revision No. 1855 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1855 of 2001 Date of decision: January 5, 2011 Brij Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. CM Munjal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. VK Jindal, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent No. 3. GURDEV SINGH, J. The petitioner/complainant, Brij Lal father of Ram Gopal- deceased, has preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 5.4.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, acquitting Ranbir Singh and Sanjeev Kumar-respondents No. 1 and 2/accused of the offence under Section 306/34 IPC in respect of which FIR No. 115 dated 23.11.1995 was registered against them in Police Station Khuian Sarwar, District Ferozepur, at the instance of the complainant. As per the prosecution version, Ram Gopal deceased was a student of BA Part-I and used to go from his village to Fazilka and come Crl. Revision No. 1855 of 2001 2 back in the mini bus in which the accused also used to travel. The accused used to quarrel with and harass him. On 20.11.1995, he disclosed to his father that the accused abused him and had also threatened to kill him. He also told that he was fed up with the daily quarrel. His father assured him that he would go to Fazilka the next day. However, on that very night he committed suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling of the room with the help of a rope. On the statement of his father/complainant, the FIR Ex. P.11 was registered. Gurbhej Singh, ASI (PW-8) accompanied by other police officials came to the spot. He prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. P.12 with correct marginal notes. Leela Dhar (PW-5), photograher was called at the spot, who took the photographs of the dead body. The ASI prepared the inquest report Ex. P.13 in respect of that dead body and sent the same for post-mortem examination. When the search of the room was taken, writing/suicide note Ex. AX was found lying on the table below a book and the same was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. P.7. Two exercise note books were also recovered and those were taken into possession, vide memo Exs. P.5 and P.6. The ASI compared the hand writing in one of the note books with the hand writing of suicide note and the same was found to have written in the hands of the deceased. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Ramesh Kumar Arora (PW- 1), who found ligature mark on the neck and gave his opinion that the cause of death was axphyia as a result of hanging, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After post-mortem examination, wearing apparels found on the dead body were produced before the ASI, who converted the same into a sealed parcel. The sealed parcel was taken into possession, vide memo Ex. P.9. The said suicide note Ex. AX and the Crl. Revision No. 1855 of 2001 3 note books containing hand writing of the deceased Ex. P.14 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After examination, it was reported by the Assistant Director of that Laboratory, vide his report Ex. P.16, that those writings were the result of common authorship. In the course of investigation, both the accused were arrested and after completion thereof, challan was put in before the trial court for the trial of the accused. As the offence was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, so the case was committed to that court. The mandatory provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') were complied with by supplying the accused with the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution. From the perusal of those documents, it was found by the Additional Sessions Judge that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined Dr. Ramesh Kumar Arora (PW-1), Brij Lal (PW-2), HC Mangal Singh (PW-3), Madan Gopal (PW-4), Leela Dhar (PW-5), Mathra Dass (PW-6), Indraj (PW-7), ASI Gurbhej Singh (PW-8), HC Gurmit Singh (PW- 9), Chint Ram (PW-10) and Seema Sharda (PW-11). After the close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence were put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all those circumstances and pleaded their innocence and false Crl. Revision No. 1855 of 2001 4 implication on the ground of enmity. They were called upon to enter on their defence but they did not produce any evidence in their defence. After going through the evidence, so produced and hearing Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused, the trial court acquitted the accused of the aforesaid offence. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the suicide note Ex. AX was duly proved on the record and the finding recorded by the trial court that the same was not proved cannot be sustained. There is statement of the brother of the deceased, who identified the hand writing of his brother deceased. He had been seeing the deceased writing and as such his statement becomes relevant under Section 47 of the Evidence Act. In addition to that, admitted hand writing of the deceased was got compared with that suicide note and those were found to be the result of the common authorship. From that suicide note, it stands proved that the accused had been harassing the deceased and compelled him to commit suicide and, as such, they committed offence under Section 306 IPC. Learned counsel for the accused tried to controvert these arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the trial court recorded the reasons in support of the findings that the suicide note was not duly proved and that there is no ground for converting the finding of acquittal into the findings of conviction. The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present revision petition. The powers of revision are contained in Section 401 of the Code. According to sub section (3) Crl. Revision No. 1855 of 2001 5 thereof, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, the finding of acquittal cannot be converted into one of conviction. Faced with that situation, no such relief, as has been prayed by the petitioner, can be granted. Furthermore, whatever has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner will just amount to appreciation of the evidence and cannot be said to be the commission of an illegality by the trial court or gross mis- carriage of justice. The petition is disposed of accordingly. January 5, 2011 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE