CRR No.2429 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2429 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.02.2011 Surinder Kaur and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sukhjeet Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab. 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) Accused/petitioners have invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing order dated 11.8.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, thereby summoning the revisionists under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to face the pending trial in Sessions Case No.41 dated 25.8.2008 pursuant to FIR No.42 dated 11.2.2008 under Sections 365/306 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Phagwara. The brief facts of the present case inter alia are that Pritpal Singh son of Mohinder Singh, resident of H.N.208, Gali No.1, Prince Colony, Mundian Kalan, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, has lodged FIR No.42 dated 11.2.2008 as under: - “Stated that I am the resident of above address and doing private service in Ludhiana and I have one CRR No.2429 of 2009 (O&M) -2- brother and three sisters and all my three sisters are married. My sister Davinder Kaur got married on 21.1.1996 with Manjit Singh s/o Gurdial Singh, resident of Guru Nanak Pura, Street No.3-C, Phagwara. She is having one son namely Raghbir Singh, who is aged 10 years and studying in 6th class. Younger to him is daughter whose name is Navjeet Kaur and she is aged 6 years and is studying and Manjit Singh is doing the business of repair of photostat machines. My younger sister Rajwinder Kaur w/o Sukhvir Phoola, is married at Nehru Nagar, Gali No.4, Phagwara. My brother- in-law Manjit Singh and his brother Raju had gone to her at about 9.00 A.M. on 7.1.08, who on reaching there told that Devinder Kaur had gone to Gurudwara in the morning who has not returned home till date whereupon Manjit Singh and his brother went back from our home and my sister Rajwinder Kaur informed telephonically that Manjit Singh and Raju had come to their house and they were staying that Devinder Kaur had gone to Gurudwara in the morning but did not turn up uptil now. So I narrated this incident to my entire family members whereupon myself and my father Mohinder Singh s/o Bishan Singh went to my sister Devinder Kaur's house at Guru Nanakpura on 7.1.08 and we had enquired from Manjit Singh and his family members about my sister Devinder Kaur's whereabouts who could not give clear reply. We had been making search of my sister Devinder Kaur but her whereabouts could not be known.” After the investigation, police has submitted challan stating therein as under: - “On dated 15.6.08, SI Ashok Kumar on reaching the spot, in the presence of respectable persons and witnesses reinvestigated the case and then the circumstances revealed that Manjit Singh s/o Gurdial Singh, resident of #198, Gali No.3-C, Guru Nanakpura, Phagwara, after his marriage, about three years ago, had gone to Calcutta, alongwith his wife Devinder Kaur and both the children, boy and girl, for doing some private job in connection with running the business of Manure (khaad) and his younger brother Rajinder Singh @ Raju got married in the year 2007 with Devinder Kaur @ Dimpy, resident of Jalandhar and the entire family had come to Phagwara from Calcutta for attending the marriage of Raju and on the resistance of wife CRR No.2429 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Devinder Kaur, he did not got to Calcutta for joining his duties. Meanwhile Devinder Kaur started learning stitching work in Stitching Centre at Phagwara. Prior to marriage of Rajinder Singh @ Raju, Devinder Kaur and Raju were having physical and illicit relations. Rajinder Singh used to hand over his earnings to his sister-in-law (brother's wife) but he curtailed the money after his marriage because of which Manjit Singh went to Tahliwal, Himachal, in connection with work and in the mean time Devinder Kaur @ Avinder Kaur developed illicit relations with some other person. Manjit Singh, who used to come back to Phagwara after 20/25 days for meeting his family, had come to know about the illicit relations of Devinder Kaur with some one else. Then Devinder Kaur became financially tight as regards her expense and started insisting her husband to do work at Ludhiana and because of these reasons, there were disputes between Manjit Singh and Devinder Kaur. On the night of 7.1.08 Devinder Kaur consumed some poisonous substance after raising dispute with Manjit Singh due to which she had died. In order to avoid implication Manjit Singh and Rajinder Singh @ Raju after wrapping the dead body in plastic sheet lying in the house and keeping the same on the rear seat of Maruti car bearing registration No.PB-10-Y-0080, threw in a ditch on an isolated place and disposed of the same by throwing (illegible – Khoki on the dead body. But Surinder Kaur, mother-in-law, and Devinder Kaur @ Dimpy, sister-in-law, did not come to know about this entire incident and both of them i.e. Surinder Kaur and Devinder Kaur has no role to play in this incident. This fact has been verified by me and the worthy D.S.P., Phagwara, also.” Initially two accused were challaned, however, in the statement during the trial complainant has stated his sister has been killed by Surinder Kaur (mother-in-law) and Deviner Kaur wife of Rajinder Singh (sister-in-law) and they have thrown her dead body. On the statement of the complainant, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the impuged order. CRR No.2429 of 2009 (O&M) -4- Learned Sessions Judge having observed that “from the testimony of the complainant appearing as PW1 it appears that there is evidence for proceeding against the accused Surinder Kaur and Devinder Kaur for facing trial” has allowed the application. Undoubtedly, in the present case, there is no eye-witness. Present case as well as challan has been submitted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. This Court in the matter of CRR No.1042 of 2010 titled “Vakil Vs. State of Haryana” decided on 9.2.2011 placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pal Singh & others versus State of U.P. and another, 2009(2) RCR(Criminal) 131, Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Ram Niwas & Anr., 2009 (3) RCR(Criminal) 501 and Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 269 (S.C.) has ruled that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when on the evidence available on the record complicity of the accused sought to be summoned appears to the Court that too when Court finds that evidence available on the record if stands unrebutted would lead to the conviction. In the present case, learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding as to whether evidence on the record if stands unrebutted would lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned, hence order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Tendency of the people to implicate all the family members cannot be ruled out. So Courts while exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must act with great care and caution, which is missing in the present case. I myself have examined entire material as well as statement of the complainant. Complainant has not seen mother-in-law-Surinder Kaur and sister-in-law-Devinder CRR No.2429 of 2009 (O&M) -5- Kaur committing the crime. Complainant has not stated as to how present revisionists have abetted the deceased Devinder Kaur w/o Manjit Kaur to commit suicide. Casual or ambiguous statements are not sufficient to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. In view of the above, present revision stands allowed. Order impugned is set aside. (Alok Singh) Judge February 14, 2011 R.S.