-1- Criminal Revision No. 1564 of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No. 1564 of 2003. Date of Decision: February 23, 2010. Girraj Parshad ... Petitioner VERSUS Parmod Kumar and others ...Respondents 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: None for the petitioner. None for the accused-respondents. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Faridabad, whereby Parmod Kumar, Ram Chand, Ram Pyari, Gajraj, Vinod and Laxmi (accused-respondents Nos.1 to 6) were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code'). -2- Criminal Revision No. 1564 of 2003. When the matter was taken up for hearing none appeared for the petitioner and the accused-respondents in spite of the fact that the presence of the learned counsel was requisitioned by the Reader of this Court by displaying his name in the notice board through the Computer installed in the Court. I have heard Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and have gone through the records of the case with his assistance. As per allegations of the prosecution, Smt.Gaytri Devi, daughter of complainant-petitioner Girraj Parshad, was married with accused-respondent Parmod Kumar on 30.6.2001 and she died an unnatural death on 5.2.2002. Sufficient dowry was given by the complainant at the time of marriage. However, the accused- respondents were demanding Rs.20,000/- and a motorcycle. On 5.2.2002, some unknown persons informed the complainant that his daughter had been killed. The dead body of Gaytri Devi was found lying on the railway track near Railway Station, Palwal. As per the defence version, on the date of occurrence, the deceased had gone to answer the call of nature along with her neighbours Omwati ( D.W.1) and Smt.Murti. When the ladies were returning back, Gaytri Devi got entangled in a hook and fell down. There was fog and she was crushed by a passing train. Her parents were informed and they were fully satisfied that the death of Gaytri Devi had occurred due to accident. The relations of Gaytri Devi joined her cremation. However, after some delay and as a -3- Criminal Revision No. 1564 of 2003. result of consultations and deliberations, a false story was concocted in order to blackmail the accused. It was pleaded that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was demanded by the complainant from the accused in a Panchayat for sparing them. The leaned trial Judge, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the death of Gaytri Devi had taken place on account of accident and the allegations regarding demand for dowry and harassment in relation thereto fell short to inspire confidence and that the prosecution failed to bring the guilt home beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them. The legal position as to the powers of this Court in revision in the matter of interference with the order of acquittal is no longer res integra, as the law in this regard is very well settled. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1962 S.C 1788 held thus: “ It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of 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 -4- Criminal Revision No. 1564 of 2003. there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.” In the case of Avtar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1979 SC 1188, the Apex Court held: “ This Court has repeatedly held that although in an appeal against acquittal, the powers of the High Court in dealing with the case are as extensive as of the trial Court, but before reversing the acquittal, the High Court should bear in mind that the initial presumption of the innocence of the accused is in no way weakened, if not reinforced, by his acquittal at the trial, and further, the opinion of the trial Court which has the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, as to the value of their evidence should not be lightly discarded. Where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, and the trial Court has opted for one favouring acquittal, the High Court should not disturb the same merely on he ground that if it were in the -5- Criminal Revision No. 1564 of 2003. position of the trial Court, it would have taken the alternative view and convicted the accused accordingly.” In the instant case, after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court dealt with various aspects of the matter and came to the conclusion that the death of Gaytri Devi was accidental. The learned trial Judge did not find the death of Gaytri Devi suicidal. It has been the case of the accused right from its inception that Gaytri Devi was got crushed over by the passing train while she was crossing the railway track when she was coming after answering the call of nature in the morning along with other two ladies. Other two ladies were Smt.Murti and Smt.Omwati. Smt.Omwati was examined as D.W.1 and she has fully supported the said version of the accused. The testimony of Smt.Omwati could not be shaken although she was subjected to a searching cross-examination. Besides, Rajan Lal (D.W.3), who is an employee of the Railways Department and was on duty on the railway track in the morning on the relevant date stated that as Smt.Gaytri Devi was looking towards one side and did not take care about the train coming from the other direction, she got crushed to death after her `Sari' was entangled. According to him, the name of the deceased was later on transpired to be Smt.Gaytri Devi. Rajan Lal (D.W.3) cannot be said to be having any soft corner for the accused as as to be motivated to depose falsely in their -6- Criminal Revision No. 1564 of 2003. favour. According to complainant Girraj Parshad(P.W.1), there were demands of dowry and the deceased used to be harassed on this account. However, it is own case of the complainant that on receiving information about the death of Smt.Gaytri Devi, he went to the village of the accused. He was present when post mortem of Gaytri Devi was conducted. He also participated in the cremation of Gaytri Devi. He did not report the matter to the police for five days. It was only on 10.2.2002 i.e on the sixth day of the death of Smt.Gaytri Devi that the complainant lodged report with the police. In this case, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the delay was not used by the complainant in deliberating the matter before lodging report with the police. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality nor it has caused miscarriage of justice. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was also no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was there any defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. February 23, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE