Crl. Appeal No. 624-DB of 2000. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No. 624-DB of 2000. Date of Decision : 29.4.2009. 1. Raj Pal Singh son of Harnek Singh; 2. Harnek Singh son of Sadhu Singh, Both residents of village Hassanpur, Police Station Dhuri, District Sangrur. ...... Appellants Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate & Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Gurveen Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the complainant. NAWAB SINGH J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated November 17, 2000 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby, both the accused appellants were convicted under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 302 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Six months each under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Crl. Appeal No. 624-DB of 2000. 2 2. During pendency of the appeal, accused-appellant Harnek Singh died and accordingly, appeal filed on behalf of Harnek Singh stands abated. 3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:- On December 26th, 1989, Harpal Kaur (PW-1) wife of Upkar Singh (deceased) moved application (Exhibit PA) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur stating therein that on November 27th, 1989, her husband Upkar Singh (deceased) had gone to Dhuri. On his way back, he came on the tractor of Harnek Singh. Harnek Singh and his son Raj Pal Singh accused unloaded the maize brought by her husband at her house. She inquired from them where Upkar Singh was. They told her that he was coming behind. She came out of the house and noticed her husband lying dead at a distance of 40/50 karams from her house. She suspected that her husband was killed by the duo after crushing him under their tractor as the land of the deceased and the accused adjoins each other and the accused wanted to grab the land of the deceased. She along with other residents of the locality tried to take her husband to Dhuri but the accused threatened her with dire consequences and advised that he should be cremated without taking the dead body to Dhuri. Out of fear, the dead body was brought at the house and was cremated. Due to fear, she did not disclose her suspicion to any one regarding her husband having been killed by the accused. On December 7, 1989, after the Bhog Ceremony, she informed her relations that her husband was murdered by the accused. 4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur marked the inquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. The DSP conducted the inquiry and submitted his report (Exhibit PA/1) to the effect that deceased was not murdered by the accused. In fact, Upkar Singh died as he jumped from the tractor of Harnek Singh in an inebriated condition. The complaint was filed by Harpal Kaur to pressurise the accused as the complainant wanted to get waived the loan taken by her husband from the accused to which the accused did not agree. Crl. Appeal No. 624-DB of 2000. 3 5. Dis-satisfied with the report of the DSP, complainant again approached the higher authorities and the matter was re-investigated by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Sangrur who found that the deceased died on account of road accident while travelling on the tractor of Harnek Singh. The accident occurred on account of negligent driving of Harnek Singh. In his opinion, offences under Section 201, 279 and 304-A IPC were made out. S.P. (Headquarters) submitted his report (Exhibit PC). Accordingly, the accused were sent up before the Area Magistrate for facing trial under Sections 201 and 304-A IPC. 6. Trial ensued before the Area Magistrate, Dhuri. Harpal Kaur (PW-1) and her niece Paramjit Kaur (PW-2) deposed in the Court that Upkar Singh was murdered by the accused after running over by a tractor. Thereafter, case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 7. Charge, in respect of commission of offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. In support of its case, prosecution examined five witnesses in all viz. Harpal Kaur (PW-1), Sukhjinder Singh (PW-2), Nahar Singh (PW-3), Harbant Singh, Constable (PW-4) and Sampuran Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW-5). 9. In their examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied their complicity. It was stated by them that Upkar Singh owed some amount to them. Upkar Singh also executed a pronote in faovur of Harnek Singh. He was an addict. After the death of Upkar Singh, Harpal Kaur refused to return the amount. A civil suit for recovery of the amount on the basis of pronote was filed on May 20th, 1990. The suit was decreed. Harpal Kaur filed appeal against the said judgment and decree. Before the appellate Court, she compromised the matter and an undertaking was given that she would pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- upto January 31st, 1997 but she did not and Crl. Appeal No. 624-DB of 2000. 4 rather filed regular second appeal in the High Court and in the High Court, she again gave an undertaking that she would pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and she withdrew the appeal. 10. In their defence evidence, accused examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, Parkash Chand (DW-1), Kikkar Singh (DW-2), Harbhajan Singh (DW-3), Dalbara Singh (DW-4), Baldev Singh (DW-5), Gurdeep Singh (DW-6) and Dr. Atul K. Singla, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert (DW-7). 11. The occurrence allegedly took place on November 27th, 1989. Bhog ceremony was held on December 7th, 1989. Till then, complainant did not make even a whisper that her husband was murdered. Till the Bhog, many persons came to offer condolences. The accused could not be there to keep her gagged round the clock. Still, she never disclosed before any relative or other person that her husband was murdered. She did not approach the Police. She never sent any other person to inform the Police. Even after the Bhog, she remained mum for quite some time before making application to the Senior Superintendent of Police. 12. Courts of law insist on prompt lodging of the report with the Police to rule out possibility of made up stories and coloured versions being introduced. In this particular case, there was no tangible reason for the inordinate delay. Allegations that accused threatened the complainant is hog-wash. 13. Post-mortem examination never took place. As is customary, many villagers assembled at the cremation and would make the complainant feel safe but she never complained of the murder of her husband. Why? The only answer is that there was no foul play and as a result of after-thought, complainant was motivated to introduce the allegations of murder. 14. Complainant had filed petition for claiming compensation for the death of her husband before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal irrespective of the result of that case, the truth comes to surface that it was an accident and not murder. 15. Considering the probabilities, the prosecution case Crl. Appeal No. 624-DB of 2000. 5 is neither here nor there. Accused, according to prosecution, had taken the deceased to Dhuri. If at all, they were to murder him, would they do so only after reaching the village and within the view of the complainant and her son. The account given is obviously absurd. Complainant has given a narration which has nothing to do with truth. What has been observed regarding testimony and credibility of the complainant applies equally to her son. 16. Suspicion alone, howsoever strong it may be, cannot be substituted for proof. An overall view of the evidence and circumstances in this case does not even raise a strong suspicion against the accused. The whole yarn spun by widow and son of the deceased appears to be an entirely made up story. The motive alleged is rather far-fetched. By murdering the deceased, the accused could not have become owners of his land. Deceased owed money to accused. Litigation based upon pronote took place in which the complainant was the losing party. As is evident, she entered into a settlement and then chose to file regular second appeal and had to compromise once again. The circumstances strongly indicate that the motive has been on part of the complainant to blackmail the accused. 17. Learned trial Judge fell in error when he held the accused-appellant guilty and convicted him. There was no sufficient or reliable evidence to bring the guilt home. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Judge are set aside. Consequently, the accused-appellant is acquitted. The appellant is on bail. The bail/surety bonds shall stand discharged. (NAWAB SINGH) (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE JUDGE 22.4.2009. SN Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes