IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1482 of 2005 Date of decision: December 06, 2010 Shinder Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. Sher Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Dabla, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. None for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J This is a petition preferred by the complainant- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the complainant') against the judgment dated 6.4.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, acquitting the accused- respondent of the charges underSection 302, 34 IPC. State did not prefer any appeal. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 11.7.2001, at about 6.00 a.m. Sher Singh, Tarsem Singh and Amrik Singh took Beant Singh husband of the complainant to Chandigarh saying that they would return by the evening. However, they did not return till evening. Thereafter, at about 12 mid night the respondents came along with Beant Singh to her house and after leaving him there, they slipped away. He was in an injured condition. On enquiry, Beant Singh disclosed that he had been given injuries by Shera and others. Shingara Singh had just gone to call the doctor, but in the meantime her husband succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, formal FIR was registered and investigated. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the accused were charged under Section 302/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr. Navjiwal Goel (PW1), Shinder Kaur (PW2), Shingara Singh (PW3), Criminal Revision No. 1482 of 2005 -2- *** Tilak Ram (PW4), Kirpal Singh (PW5), Sewa Singh (PW6), ASI Kashmira Singh (PW7), C. Chand Parkash (PW8), Ramesh Kumar (PW9), HC Naib Singh (PW10), DSP Bhulla Singh (PW11) and Inspector Devinder Singh (PW12). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication in the case. He has further explained as under :- “I am innocent. I have been falsely roped in the present case. I had neither any concern with Beant Singh deceased, nor I took him any where on 11.7.2001 I also did not leave him at his house during the night of that day. Deceased is known to have suffered injuries in the road side accident during night on 11.7.2001 near Tanki No.2, Mandi Gobindgarh. One Mohanjit Singh son of Bachan Singh, Jat resident of Nasrali also suffered injuries in that road accident and that road accident was witnessed by Amrik Singh and Mohinder Singh sons of Gurnam Singh residents of near Tanki No.2, Mandi Gobindgarh near whose house the said road accident took place. Besides, Manjit Singh son of Mohinder Singh resident of Kumbra also witnessed road accident. Kirpal Singh, Chobbar Singh and Dara Singh were falsely cited as eye witnesses against me due to party faction in the village. Statements of Kirpal Singh and Chobbar Singh were recorded by the police after 7 months of the death of Beant Singh. Kirpal Singh (PW5) has deposed falsely against me due to party faction in the village. I had been contesting elections for member panchayat in the village against said Kirpal Singh and he suffered defeat in those elections at my hand and due to that enmity and grouse against me, he became a false witness and has deposed falsely. Chhinder Kaur (PW2), Shingara Singh (PW3) also belong to other faction of the village and they have deposed falsely due to enmity. Shingara Singh is working as a servant with Kirpal Singh aforesaid and as such he has deposed at the Criminal Revision No. 1482 of 2005 -3- *** instance of Kirpal Singh. In fact Smt. Chhinder Kaur filed a criminal Misc. No. 36861 M of 2001 in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and in that petition Param Pal Singh Sidhu IPS, then SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib filed duly sworn affidavit in the Hon'ble High Court testifying therein that the investigation of this case FIR No.80 dated 12.7.2001 under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Gobindgarh was carried out by Inspector Devinder Singh, then SHO P.S. Gobindgarh, Inspector Sukhdev Singh In-charge CIA Staff, Sirhind, Gurchain Singh then DSP Amloh and Sukhwant Singh Gill, DSP (D), Fatehgarh Sahib thoroughly and during investigation by the said officers it was found that it was an accident case and not a murder case. So the offence was converted into offence under Section 304-A IPC in which accused were arrested and released on bail according to law. Moreover, the maruti car involved in the road accident taken into possession by the IO was returned and released to its lawful owner on supurdari under the orders of SDJM, Amloh. I have been intentionally involved in this case by the rival faction in order to tarnish my image as Lamberdar and member panchayat of village Kumb.” The other accused also took the identical pleas. In defence, they examined Mohanjit Singh (DW1), Mohinder Singh (DW2), Mohinder Singh son of Mangal Singh (DW3), Inderpreet Singh (DW4), C. Jagroop Singh (PW5), ASI Sahij Pal Singh (DW6) and Sukhwant Singh (DW7). Ultimately the trial resulted into acquittal of the accused persons. Arguments heard. Record perused. The prosecution has mainly banked upon the testimony of Kirpal Singh (PW5) an alleged eye witness of the occurrence. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place on 11.7.2001, but the statement of Kirpal Singh (PW5) was recorded on 27.5.2002. The prosecution has failed to explain the huge delay in recording the statement of the witness. Kirpal Criminal Revision No. 1482 of 2005 -4- *** Singh (PW5) during his examination has tried to explain that he tried to get his statement recorded but the police had not recorded the same. However, during cross-examination, he admits that he did not make any complaint to the higher authorities regarding non recording of his statement to the police. Further more, had he actually witnessed the occurrence, on 11.7.2001, then he would have disclosed about the same to the complainant and her brother Shingara Singh, and they would have disclosed the said incident to the police forthwith. The conduct of this witness is highly un-natural. Further more, no reliance could be placed on the testimonies of Chhinder Kaur (PW2) and Shingara Singh (PW3). The prosecution version, on the face of it, is highly improbable. According to the prosecution version, the accused persons took the deceased Beant Singh with them in the morning of 11.7.2001. Since he had not returned, therefore, both Chhinder Kaur and Shingara Singh were waiting for Beant Singh out side their house and at about 12 mid night the accused persons left the deceased at their house and slipped away. It is highly improbable that the persons who inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased with an intention to kill him, would leave him at his house. Barring the aforesaid evidence, no such piece of direct or circumstantial evidence has come to fore to complete the chain and in order to enable the court to reach the conclusion that it was none else but the accused who were responsible for the commission of the crime. Any way, perusal of the record further transpires that the case was investigated by four different Investigating Officers i.e. Inspector Devinder Singh, Inspector Sukhdev Singh, DSP Gurchain Singh and DSP Sukhwant Singh Gill, thoroughly and found that it was a case of accident under Section 304-A. That apart, Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib filed an affidavit before this Court to the effect that the investigation in this case had been conducted by the said officers impartially and honestly. The complainant has failed to bring on record anything suggesting that the aforesaid Investigating Officers had enmity or bias towards her. The motive also does not stand proved. As such, the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the crime. Statement of the complainant as well as her brother Shingara Singh do not Criminal Revision No. 1482 of 2005 -5- *** inspire confidence. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity or perversity has been pointed out so as to render the judgment as invalid warranting interference by this Court. Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that if two views are possible even then the view favouring the accused is to be accepted. For the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. December 06, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge