IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.99-MA of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 State of Haryana Applicant Versus Deepak Sethi alias Bablu and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.Harbhajan Singh Sran, Additional Advocate General, Haryana ….. Jasbir Singh, J. The State of Haryana has filed this application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 5.8.2008, acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them under Section 302 IPC (however, they were held guilty for commission of offences under Sections 147, 325 read with Section 149 IPC). It was allegation against the respondents that they on 22.9.2004, in furtherance of their common object, committed murder of Makhan Singh Sachdeva. Criminal Misc. No.99-MA of 2009(O&M) 2 Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court, in paragraph No.1 of its judgment, reads thus:- “Police station city Karnal registered case vide FIR No.449 dated 22.9.2004 under sections 147/149/302 Indian Penal Code on the complaint of Paramjit Singh who stated that he was resident of House No.150-C, Model Town, Karnal and was running a shop in Timber Market, Karnal. His father Sardar Makhan Singh Sachdeva was a press reporter for Veer Arjun newspaper and he had employed Smt.Reena Rani, resident of Chora Bazar, Thathera Mohalla in his office. Reena Rani arranged a room on rent for her younger brother Sunni in Thathera Mohalla in the house of Asha Rani wife of Ashok Kumar. On 22.9.2004 at about 8 p.m., Reena Rani informed his father that Asha Rani, Deepak Sethi alias Bablu, Mahaesh Chand, Paramjit Singh and some other relatives of Asha Rani had broken the lock of the room of Sunni and thrown his luggage outside. On this information, he along with his father started on Honda Activa No.HR-05L-9600 for Thathera Mohalla. On the way, they met Sham Sunder son of Roshan Lal who also accompanied them. When they reached Thathera Mohalla, the above persons were abusing Reena Rani. When they objected, Asha Rani told Deepak Sethi, Mahesh Chand, Paramjit Singh and other persons at the spot that Sardar Makhan Singh helped Reena Rani and Sunni and he should be taught a lesson for doing so. The persons named above Criminal Misc. No.99-MA of 2009(O&M) 3 caughted hold of his father who fell down. Then, they pressed him. He and the Sham Sunder tried to separate them. They were pushed away. When they raised cries of Bachao Bachao, several persons from the locality collected and above persons then ran away from the spot. His father Makhan Singh died at the spot.” The process of investigation started at the instance of Paramjit Singh Sachdeva (PW4) (son of the deceased), at whose instance, FIR was recorded against the respondents on 22.9.2004 for commission of offences under Sections 147, 149, 302 IPC. After recording the FIR, the investigating officer went to the spot, prepared inquest report and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr.Yogesh Sharma (PW1), who found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- “1x1 cm abrasion on the posterior aspect of right elbow.” The witness was unable to give cause of death and deferred his opinion awaiting histopathology report. After receiving the above said report (Ex.PD) from PGIMS Rohtak, PW1 had given his opinion (Ex.DA/1) as under:- “After going through histopathology report from PGIMS, Rohtak No.Path/04/4619 dated 25.11.2004 and reviewing PMR No.YS/24/04 dt.23.9.2004, we are of the opinion that probable cause of death in this case is Ischaemic Heart Disease.” On completion of investigation, the investigating officer Kitab Singh (PW5) submitted the final report in Court for trial. The respondents were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The Criminal Misc. No.99-MA of 2009(O&M) 4 prosecution produced 12 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statements of the respondents-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence acquitted the respondents so far as charge under Section 302 IPC is concerned, however, they were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 147, 325 read with Section 149 IPC, as mentioned earlier and following sentence was inflicted upon them:- “Under Section 147 IPC Convicts are sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year Under Section 325 read with Section 149 IPC Convicts are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, the convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for two months each.” All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Counsel for the State has vehemently contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to convict the respondents for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. To say so, he has made reference to the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, including the eye witnesses. He prayed that the judgment be rectified and the respondents be convicted under Section 320 IPC. Criminal Misc. No.99-MA of 2009(O&M) 5 After hearing counsel for the applicant, this Court feels that it is not possible to interfere at the instance of the applicant. As per medical evidence on record, death had occurred due to ‘Ischaemic Heart Disease’. It has come on record that the deceased was a heart patient and there is nothing on record to prove that this fact was known to the respondents. A positive finding in that regard has been given by the trial Court in paragraph No.21 of the judgment, under challenge. It has come on record that the deceased was physically fit and he had reached at the spot by driving a scooter. PW4 Paramjit Singh Sachdeva, his son, has admitted that the deceased was not bodily weak and was having very good heath. It was allegation of the prosecution that the deceased was pushed to the ground and then fist blows were given to him. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that there appears to be no intention on the part of the respondents to cause any bodily injury to the deceased, which may result into causing his death. The trial Court has discussed the evidence in a threadbare manner. Counsel for the applicant has failed to show us any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court which may necessitate interference by this Court. The view taken by the trial Court, as per evidence on record, is perfectly justified. Even in cases where two views are possible, ordinarily, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. Criminal Misc. No.99-MA of 2009(O&M) 6 A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:- “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” In view of above, no case is made for interference. There is a delay in filing the application for leave to grant appeal. No ground is made to condone the delay as well. Accordingly, both the applications stand dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 30.10.2009 (Daya Chaudhary) gk Judge