CRR No.83 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.83 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.01.2011 Chet Ram ....Petitioner Versus Sunil and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. N.K. Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Complainant has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the judgment dated 30.7.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, thereby acquitting the accused in a sessions trial under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Hasanpur, in FIR No.11 dated 26.1.2007. The prosecution story is that Chet Ram (revisionist), resident of Hasanpur has lodged a report with the police on 26.1.2007 (Ex.P8) to the effect that he is doing business of brick kiln in village Khami. He had a son Deepak, aged 14-15 years (now deceased). On 25.1.2007 at about 6.00/7.00 p.m., Hemraj son of Tek Chand had called and accompanied his son from the house but his son Deepak did not return home. They started searching him here and there. Then he visited the CRR No.83 of 2010 -2- house of Hemraj and enquired about his son but he was not found present in the house. During night, he also enquired from the house of a friend of his son Deepak, namely Khaksar son of Mehmood Ali, a resident of Hasanpur. At this, Khaksar started laughing and showed his ignorance about the whereabouts of his son Deepak. The complainant further alleged that they searched Deepak here and there he had received an information on 26.1.2007 that a dead body of a boy was lying in the jungle of Panchayat Deh Sehnoli. Accordingly, he along with Raj Kumar - Sarpanch, Manohar Lal Sharma and Gian Parkash, residents of Hasanpur went to the jungles where he identified the dead body of his son Deepak. He is satisfied that his son Deepak has been murdered by Khaksar, Sunil son of Hari Chand and Hemraj son of Tek Chand, all residents of Hasanpur, who are friends of his son. He also shown a grudge with his son regarding payment of the bricks supplied to them as a quarrel took place between his son Deepak and Sunil in his regard and Deepak has also informed him about the said quarrel. Thus, he suspects that Sunil alongwith his friends Khaksar and Hemraj had murdered his son Deepak. Raj Kumar – Sarpanch and Manohar Lal Ex-Chairman beside the other co-villagers kept guard the dead body of Deepak. Police has submitted challan against Sunil, Khaksar Ahmed and Harish under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused Hemraj was found to be juvenile. From the prosecution side ten witnesses were examined. As per the post-mortem report, cause of death was due to asphyxia as a result of throattling. CRR No.83 of 2010 -3- Present case undisputedly is blind murder. There is no eye- witness to the occurrence. Prosecution is banking upon the circumstantial evidence. Chet Ram PW1, father of the deceased, has stated that his son Deepak (deceased) was seen in the company of Hemraj son of Tek Chand at 6.00/7.00 p.m. on 25.1.2007. Hemraj accused called Deepak from the house and took him alongwith him and thereafter Deepak never returned back. Dead body of Deepak was found lying in the forest of Panchayat Deh Sehnoli on 26.1.2007 at 5.00 p.m. Chet Ram PW1 has stated that Hemraj never took Deepak in his presence but Poonam, daughter of Chet Ram, has told him that Hemraj accused has taken Deepak alongwith him. In the present case, Poonam, who has allegedly told to Chet Ram about the taking of Deepak by accused Hemraj, has never been produced as a prosecution witness. Post-mortem examination was conducted on the body of Deepak on 27.1.2007 at 12.30 p.m. According to the Doctor, death could have taken place between the evening of 24.1.2007 and morning of 25.1.2007. As per prosecution story, Deepak has left the house alongwith accused Hemraj in the evening of 25.1.2007, meaning thereby the prosecution story does not match with the statement of the Doctor, according to whom death could have taken place only between the evening of 24.1.2007 and morning of 25.1.2007. It means, story set up by the prosecution is not corroborated by the medical evidence. None of the witnesses has stated before the Court that they ever found deceased Deepak in the company of accused Sunil, Khaksar Ahmed and Harish before his death. The main accused with whom he is said to have gone CRR No.83 of 2010 -4- from the house i.e. Hemraj, is a juvenile and is not facing this trial. In view of the above, judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the accused seems to be justified. In the opinion of this Court, if case is based upon the circumstantial evidence, then Court must scrutinize every piece of the evidence with great care and caution and if Court finds there are doubts in the prosecution story and chain as alleged by the prosecution does not inspire confidence, acquittal should follow; mere suspicion should not be made ground for the conviction of an accused facing trial under Section 302 IPC. There must be a strong proof or so strong circumstances compelling the Court to think that from every angle he is accused who has committed crime. In the opinion of this Court, in the present case circumstances are not only weak but are highly doubtful, which are not corroborated by the medical evidence. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge January 28, 2011 R.S.