Crl.Revision No.2360 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.2360 of 2002 Date of Decision:21.01.2010 Jal Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Dharam Pal .....Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar. Argued By:Mr.S.K.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the respondent. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) This criminal revision petition has been directed by petitioner- Jal Kaur widow of Ram Kishan impugning the judgment dated 04.09.2002 vide which the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, has acquitted the respondent-accused Dharam Pal son of Fateh Singh. 2. The compendium of the prosecution case, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, is that on 15.05.2001, a police party headed by PW9 SI Sandeep Singh was present at bus stand, Chhajpur in connection with patrol and detection of crime duty where Ram Kishan son of Datta Ram reached there and got recorded his statement (Ex.PE). Narrating the sequence of events, he mentioned that on 14.05.2001, he had gone to the fields for grazing the animals and at about 5.00 P.M., when he came back, then his wife Jal Kaur told him that Crl.Revision No.2360 of 2002 2 their son Ram Mehar aged 12 years, student of 6th class had left the house at about 4.00 P.M. and he had not returned by that time. Thereafter, he along with his nephew Jagdish and Subhash sons of Manga searched for Ram Mehar here and there, but in vain. The matter was reported to the police at about 11.30 P.M. regarding his (Ram Mehar) missing. They continued searching him in the fields of sugarcane where his chappals were found. During the course of search, they found the dead body of his son(Ram Mehar) lying there in the sugarcane fields and blood was oozing out from the mouth and nostrils. It appeared that the dead body of Ram Mehar was thrown in the fields by someone after murdering him. But he had no suspicion or any reason about the murder of his son by that time. After leaving Subhash and other villagers near the dead body, he(Ram Kishan) was going to the police station to lodge the report where PW9 met him at the bus stand and recorded his statement (Ex.PE) which formed the basis of FIR (Ex.PE/2). After the registration of the case, the investigating officer reached the spot, prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and completed all other formalities. 3. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that during the course of investigation, it revealed that accused-Dharam Pal had committed the murder of Ram Mehar. Accused was stated to have made extra-judicial confession on 29.05.2001 before PW8-Ishwar and Karambir Singh, Ex-Sarpanch. The accused was produced by them and arrested by the police. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations in all, according to the prosecution that acquitted accused-Dharam Pal has committed the murder of Ram Mehar and thrown his dead body in order to screen the evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered against the accused vide FIR(Ex.PE/2) on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC. Crl.Revision No.2360 of 2002 3 5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the respondent- accused was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302/201 IPC vide order dated 04.09.2002 by the trial Court. As the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial, therefore, the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. 6. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges brought against the accused examined PW1-ASI Sultan Singh, PW2-Constable Bajinder Singh, PW3-Om Parkash, Patwari PW4-ASI Balwan Singh, PW5- Constable Bajinder Singh, PW6-R.K.Garg, Medical Supdt., Civil Hospital, Panipat, PW7-Bal Kishan son of Mehar Singh, Photographer, PW8-Ishwar son of Dhulia and PW9-SI Sandeep Singh. PWs-Karambir Singh, Dhanraj, Subhash and Rinku were given up on the application of complainant as having been won over by the accused. PW8-Ishwar before whom accused was stated to have made extra-judicial confession, did not support the prosecution case at all. Therefore, the trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused for want of evidence vide impugned judgment dated 04.09.2002. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that the State of Haryana did not file any appeal against acquittal but the petitioner still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of acquittal and filed the present revision petition. That is how I am seized of the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial Judge committed an illegality and irregularity in acquitting the accused, although he identified the place of occurrence. Admitting the fact that no doubt material witness did not support the prosecution case, learned counsel for the petitioner still urged that the impugned judgment be set aside. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (acquitted) accused canvassed that there is not an iota of Crl.Revision No.2360 of 2002 4 evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime in question and no interference is called in the impugned judgment of acquittal in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record with their valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, as there is no merit, therefore, the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned here-in-below. 11. The cardinal fundamental principles of criminal law/jurisprudence have to be kept in focus, while deciding such criminal cases. Some of these are that the absolute onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused cannot possibly be convicted without any legal substantive evidence as the evidence is essential element in criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations alleged against the accused because criminal proceedings require strict proof of guilt. It is the evidence, on the basis of which, the decision of a criminal court is based and is the requirement of criminal justice. Otherwise, in the absence of the same, the court has no option but to record an order of acquittal, howsoever, painful the same may be. 12. Likewise, no one can dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Chinnaswamy Reddy V. State of A.P. and another AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788 (1) and Ayodhya Dube and others V. Ram Sumer Singh AIR1981 Supreme Court 1415, relied upon, on behalf of the petitioner, that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal, even at the instance of the private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal, but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a Crl.Revision No.2360 of 2002 5 manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 13. Such, thus, being the position of law, now the core question that arises for determination in the instant petition is whether there are glaring defects in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice or not, so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 14. The perusal of the evidence on record would reveal that there is no direct evidence on record against the respondent-accused and the prosecution version revolves around the circumstantial evidence. The main circumstantial evidence sought to be pressed into service by the prosecution was that accused made extra judicial confession before PWs- Ishwar and Karambir. PW-Karambir along with other material witnesses were given up on the application of the complainant by the prosecution, as having been won over by the accused. The only witness PW8 Ishwar was examined but instead of supporting, he has also totally demolished the prosecution version in its entirety and maintained that neither accused- Dharam Pal approached him nor suffered any extra-judicial confession. He resiled from his earlier statement. He was cross-examined at length but no substantial material could be elicited in his cross-examination which could be used in favour of the prosecution or against the accused. Meaning thereby, it is a case of no evidence and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused for lack of evidence. It means, the trial Court recorded valid reasons in acquitting the accused and in that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that there are glaring defects in the procedure or there is a manifest error on the point of law resulting into a flagrant miscarriage of justice. 15. No other point worth consideration has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. Crl.Revision No.2360 of 2002 6 16. Above being the position, to me, that since the trial Court has recorded valid reasons in this respect, therefore, no ground for interfering in the impugned judgment of acquittal is made out in the obtaining circumstances of the case in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 17. In the light of aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is hereby dismissed. January 21, 2010 ( Mehinder Singh Sullar) seema Judge