Crl. Revision No. 2495 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2495 of 2008 Date of Decision:February 20, 2009 Prem Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Rajinder Singh-respondent No. 2 was tried for an offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') in FIR No. 46 dated 26.6.1997 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana vide impugned judgment dated 3.5.2008, Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib acquitted respondent No. 2 of the charge framed against him. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Prosecution story as noticed by the trial court in paras 2 to 6 of its judgment is as under:- “The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.4.1997, Avtar Singh son of Ranjit Singh told Prem Singh brother of deceased Sital Singh that the dead body of Sital Singh was lying near the premises of government Tubewell no. 70 on Morinda-Chunni Crl. Revision No. 2495 of 2008 {2} Road Avtar Singh had been living with Sital Singh for the last 15 years. On receipt of information, Prem Singh reached the disclosed place where dead body of Sital Singh was lying. He observed that there were marks of blood on the right side of the mouth of Sital Singh.. Other people also gathered at the spot. Sital Singh was in the habit of excessive drinking, as such Prem Singh and other thought that his death might have been caused as a result of being injured by some vehicle. The dead body of Sital Singh was brought to his house on a cot. Accused Rajinder Singh and His co-accused Jarnail Singh(since acquitted) also came there. They told him that Sital Singh had separated from them after consuming liquor at Morinda as he had to attend some work in his village. They further advised that the post mortem on the dead body of Sital Singh was not required as he was a habitual drunkard. They suggested Prem Singh not to resort to any proceedings regarding the death of Sital Singh and to cremate the dead body without any delay. Accordingly, dead body of Sital Singh was cremated without post mortem. 3 On 24.6.1997, Mewa son of Tulsa Singh resident of village Munderan, who works as mechanic at Morinda came to Kheri Bir Singh and told Prem Singh that Jarnail Singh (since acquitted in this case), and Rajinder Singh accused had come to him on 22.6.1997, and told him that both of them liquidated Sital Singh. The motive for the murder of Sital Singh was disclosed as the sale deed of his land measuring 9K-5M which Crl. Revision No. 2495 of 2008 {3} was executed by Jarnail Singh in favour of Rajinder Singh, on the basis of General Power of Attorney of Sital Singh. Both Rajinder Singh and Jarnail Singh wanted to take possession of the said land and Sital singh demanded money from them which was taken as sale consideration by Jarnail Singh. 4. On receipt of above information from Mewa singh, Prem Singh proceeded towards Police Post Badali Ala Singh and met ASI Ramandeep Singh at the bus stand of village Chunni. He narrated all the facts to him regarding the incident and his statement was recorded, whereupon the formal FIR Ex. PC/1 was recorded. 5 The police conducted the investigation and prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PW-8/A. Later on the investigation was taken from Ramandeep Singh (PW-8) and was entrusted to CIA staff Sirhind under the orders of Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib. 6. On 1.2.1997, Jarnail Singh was produced before SI Harbans Singh (PW-5) and he arrested him while accused Rajinder Singh was declared Proclaimed Offender.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that dead body of Sital Singh was cremated without post mortem examination at the instance of respondent Rajinder Singh and Jarnail Singh. Both of them in connivance with each other had committed murder of Sital Singh. In the present case occurrence has allegedly taken place on the night intervening 16/17.4.1997. thereafter, FIR was got registered on 26.6.1997. Dead body of Sital Singh was cremated without any post Crl. Revision No. 2495 of 2008 {4} mortem examination. Earlier Jarnail Singh was triad for a offence under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC as respondent No. 2 was declared a proclaimed offender. Vide judgment dated 24.12.1998, Jarnail Singh was acquitted of the charge framed against him by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. The said judgment was upheld in appeal filed by the State in Criminal Appeal No. 183-DBA of 2000 vide judgment dated 12.12.2006. Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 14.6.1999 after he surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib on 8.6.1999 and the supplementary challan was present against him. The delay in lodging the FIR in the present case is fatal to the prosecution case as after the death of Sital Singh, the matter was not immediately reported to the police. Learned trial court has observed that prosecution had failed to prove by examining any witness that the deceased was last seen with respondent No. 2. The wife of Mewa Singh, in whose presence respondent No. 2 had allegedly suffered a disclosure statement could not be examined as he died before he should be examined in the Court. However, Mewa Singh was examined as a witness during trial against co-accused of respondent No. 2-Jarnail Singh and his statement was not believed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. With regard to the motive of murder of Sital Singh, the witnesses examined by the prosecution were not believed by the Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the co accused-Jarnail Singh. The judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib acquitting the co-accused-Jarnail Singh has been upheld by this Court in appeal filed by the State. It has been held by Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State Crl. Revision No. 2495 of 2008 {5} of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect or procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. In these circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondent No. 2. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. The impugned judgment of the trial court dated 3.5.2008, thus, calls for no interference. Petition is dismissed accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE February 20, 2009 PARAMJIT