Crl. Revision No.2622 of 2004 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.2622 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 Smt. Kailash Wanti @ Kailash Devi ……Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL -.- Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, A.A.G., Punjab. A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 5.4.2004, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Amritsar, acquitting the accused under Sections 201, 364/120-B I.P.C. In the nutshell, the allegations, as per complaint filed by Smt. Kailash Wanti @ Kailash Devi, are that her daughter Santosh was married with Rajinder Kumar in the year 1985 according to Crl. Revision No.2622 of 2004 (O&M) -2- Hindu Rites at Amritsar (since declared as proclaimed offender). It was also alleged that the said Rajinder Kumar in connivance of his father Amir Chand used to give severe beatings to Santosh and she was turned out from her matrimonial house on instigation of one Ra- man Kumar @ Rama his close relative but every time, with the inter- vention of respectables, the matter was compromised. But despite the assurance given to the respectables, they continued misbehaving with her. It was further alleged that on 19.4.1999, all the said per- sons after giving her severe beatings turned her out from the house by all the accused/respondents (herein referred as “respondents”). They were demanding more dowry. All the said persons except Ra- man Kumar @ Rama were residing at House No.1057, Mohalla Gobindgarh c/o Devi Ji Pattiwala, Jalandhar, as they had shifted from Patti. It was further alleged that on 21.4.1999, Rajinder Kumar alongwith all other respondents came at the residence of the com- plainant and on assurance, that they would not misbehave with San- tosh in future, took back Santosh but since then her whereabouts are not known. Whenever she asked them to tell her whereabouts, they put them off one pretext or the other. Sometimes they told that she had gone to Holland with her husband Rajinder Kumar and some- times they had told that she had gone to their relatives, but on en- quiring through Embassy of Holland, she came to know that there was no entry of her going with Rajinder Kumar to Holland. Santosh did not attend the marriage of Ramesh Kumar son of the complainant Crl. Revision No.2622 of 2004 (O&M) -3- on 13.12.1999, despite the fact that she (complainant) sent a number of messages, telephone calls at her in-laws address and as well as at Holland. Now despite her best efforts, the complainant had got no clue about her or her son Sakul either in Holland or with her-in-laws, as such she and her son were doubted to have been murdered by the respondents and they have destroyed their bodies. On the basis of the affidavit of complainant, the case bearing FIR No.5 dated 7.1.2000, under Sections 364/120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused at Police Sta- tion ‘A’ Division, Amritsar. Initial investigation was conducted by In- spector Baldev Singh and further investigation was also conducted through S.P. (Head Quarters), Amritsar, Rashpal Singh Ghuman, D.S.P., City-I, Amritsar but later on, on the basis of orders of this Court, the investigation was conducted by Crime Wing by Sh. Lajpal Singh, IPS, S.P. Special Staff, Crime Wing, Jalandhar. The accused namely Amir Chand was arrested on 10.6.2002. Statements of wit- nesses were recorded on 16.2.2000 and 5.3.2000. On 2.2.2002 in the presence of both the parties and other respectables, a telephonic call was made to Shakul son of accused Rajinder Kumar and Smt. Santosh Kumari @ Santosh Rani who was residing at California at that time and his entire telephonic conversation was recorded. Dur- ing the telephonic call made to Shakul, he disclosed that his mother Smt. Santosh did not come to Holland alongwith Rajinder Kumar and he made a statement against parents and other family members of Crl. Revision No.2622 of 2004 (O&M) -4- his mother Santosh who was missing since long. Sh. Rachhpal Singh Ghuman, DSP City-I entered a zimni verifying the information disclosed by Shakul but he did not specifically mention that accused Amir Chand was totally innocent. After that in compliance of the orders passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court further investigation of this case was conducted by Sh. Joginder Lal, DSP Special Staff, Crime Wing, Pun- jab under the personal supervision of Sh. Lajpal Singh, IPS, S.P., Special Staff, Crime Wing, Punjab. Accused Rajinder Kumar and Raman Kumar @ Rama could not be arrested during investigation and after getting the proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. is- sued by learned Illaqa Magistrate against accused Rajinder Kumar and Raman Kumar @ Rama and after getting their service effected through proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. both of them were declared proclaimed offenders by learned Illaqa Magistrate. During the entire investigation of this case, accused Amir Chand and his wife Raj Rani, father-in-law and mother-in-law of Smt. Santosh Rani, respectively could not produce any documentary proof with regard to this fact that their daughter-in-law Smt. Santosh had gone abroad but during the investigation, it was found that Devgun @ Shakul son of Smt. Santosh and accused Rajinder Kumar were alive and Shakul appeared before Head Constable Amsterdam Police Distt. Flierbos- dreef and he also sent his recent photograph in which he has been shown alongwith his father Rajinder Kumar, accused (P.O.). It was Crl. Revision No.2622 of 2004 (O&M) -5- also confirmed that Shakul was residing with his father Rajinder Ku- mar (P.O.), abroad, passports of accused Amir Chand and Raj Rani were taken into possession. Accused Amir Chand and Raj Rani suf- fered an Extra Judicial Confession before Dinesh Kumar Sharma and both of them confessed their guilt and accordingly on the basis of their joint Extra Judicial Confession, the offence punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C. was added in this case. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the Court. The accused were charged for the aforesaid offences to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecu- tion led evidence. The accused-petitioner was examined under Sec- tion 313 Cr.P.C. Arguments heard. Smt. Santosh Rani went missing on 21.4.1999 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 7.1.2000 and no plausible explanation has come forth for explaining such long delay in registration of the case. Though the complainant leveled allegations against the accused that Santosh and her son Sakul were murdered by the accused but dur- ing the investigation it came to light that Sakul, minor son of Santosh Rani had gone to America from where he came to his father at Hol- land and had been residing with his father in Holland. No witness has been examined if Santosh Rani was murdered. The case was registered on the basis of suspicion which is not supported by any other evidence. In the opinion of this Court, prosecution has failed to Crl. Revision No.2622 of 2004 (O&M) -6- lead cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to prove the essential ingredients of Sections 120-B/201/364 I.P.C. Mere suspicion can’t take place of proof. The graver the offence, the stricter the proof. The impugned judgment on examination has stood to the scrutiny of this Court. No interference is called for. The petition is dismissed. ( A.N. JINDAL ) 13th October, 2010 JUDGE ashish