Criminal Revision No. 1670 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1670 of 2008 Date of decision : October 21, 2009 Buta Singh ....Petitioner versus Harjit Kaur and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ranjodh Singh, Advocate for Mr. BS Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Buta Singh has filed this revision petition assailing judgment dated 8.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, thereby acquitting respondents Harjit Kaur, Banta Singh alias Bant Singh and Jagmohan Singh alias Mohan Singh, in case FIR No. 93 dated 5.5.2005 under sections 302, 201, 380, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Barnala. The petitioner lodged FIR on 5.5.2005 alleging that his brother Shamsher Singh alias Shera died on 26.12.2004. The petitioner and the deceased were going on bicycles when on the way the deceased fell down and vomited. The deceased told the petitioner and Ram Singh who also happened to reach there that he i.e. deceased had been administered something (poison) in tea. Immediately thereafter Shamsher Singh died. The petitioner did not suspect anything and therefore, no action was Criminal Revision No. 1670 of 2008 -2- initiated. Body of Shamsher Singh was cremated. Mohan Singh respondent no. 3 is uncle of Harjit Kaur respondent no. 1 who is widow of Shamsher Singh deceased. Mohan Singh used to visit the house of the complainant even during the life time of the deceased. On 29.4.2005, Harjit Kaur respondent no. 1 left the house along with children and took away 10 tolas of gold jewellery and Rs 60,000/- in cash. It was found that Harjit Kaur had not gone to her parental home but had entered into kareva marriage with Banta Singh respondent no. 2 on 15.4.2005. Malkiat Kaur wife of Banta Singh had also died on 20.1.2005. Consequently, the petitioner suspected that all the three respondents by entering into conspiracy had committed the murder of Shamsher Singh by administering him poison. Nazam Singh Sarpanch told during investigation on 6.5.2005 that respondent nos. 1 and 2 had made extra judicial confession before him regarding murder of Shamsher Singh as well as of Malkiat Kaur because respondent nos. 1 and 2 had illicit relationship. Some gold jewellery and cash amount of Rs 70,000/- was also recovered from the residential house of respondent no. 2 at the hands of respondent no. 1. After investigation, respondent no. 3 was found innocent and only respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were sent for trial. However, respondent no. 3 was also summoned as additional accused on application filed under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Criminal Revision No. 1670 of 2008 -3- There is no evidence worth the name to prove the guilt of the respondents. Nazam Singh Sarpanch before whom respondent nos. 1 and 2 had allegedly made extra judicial confession could not be examined as witness because he has since died. Evidence of kareva marriage of respondent no. 1 with respondent no. 2 on 15.4.2005 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondents. In fact, there is not even an iota of evidence against respondent no. 3. Recovery of gold ornaments and cash amount at the instance of respondent no. 1 from the house of respondent no. 2 also has no link with the crime. Obviously respondent no. 1 would have been her gold ornaments with her and respondent nos. 1 and 2 also could possess the cash amount of Rs 70,000/-. The said evidence cannot be said to be incriminating evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Shamsher Singh died on 26.12.2004 whereas wife of respondent no. 2 died on 20.1.2005 and thereafter respondent nos. 1 and 2 performed kareva marriage on 15.4.2005. However, merely on the basis of these circumstances, it cannot be said that respondents had committed the murder of Shamsher Singh. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner himself is highly unnatural and the version given by him is, therefore, most unreliable and unbelievable. If deceased Shamsher Singh before dying had told the petitioner that some poison had been administered to him (deceased), it is highly unnatural that the petitioner would not initiate any action and would simply cremate the dead body of the deceased. The entire version narrated by the petitioner is, therefore, not worthy of credence at all. It appears that after respondent no. 1 performed kareva marriage with respondent no. 2, the petitioner came out with the aforesaid version so that the land of the deceased could not go out of the family. The FIR was Criminal Revision No. 1670 of 2008 -4- lodged more than four months after the death of the deceased. There is no evidence to prove unnatural cause of death of the deceased. As regards death of Malkiat Kaur wife of Banta Singh respondent no. 2, no action whatsoever was initiated regarding her death against anybody. There is also no evidence to depict that she died unnatural death. In fact, she died at her parental home and not even in the home of respondent no. 2. It is, thus, apparent that no evidence whatsoever has been led by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the respondents. In addition to the aforesaid, it may be noticed that there is presumption of innocence in favour of every accused. The said presumption gets strengthened and reinforced by judgment of acquittal. Even if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused has to be extended. In the instant case only reasonable view on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution could be that prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt at all. Even in appeal against judgment of acquittal, accused cannot be convicted merely because a different view is possible. In revision, scope for interference is much limited as compared to scope for interference in appeal. In view of statutory bar created by section 401(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, finding of acquittal cannot be converted into finding of conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In the instant case, the only reasonable view possible is that guilt of the respondents is not proved. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 21, 2009 Judge 'dalbir' Criminal Revision No. 1670 of 2008 -5-