IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 15, 2011 Deva Nand .. Petitioner Vs. Nirmla Devi and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J Three persons were accused of the offence under Sections 302/120-B read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, out of whom, Harpal Singh died during trial, whereas, respondents No.1 and 2 were tried and vide judgment dated 1.9.2008, they were acquitted of the charges framed against them for the aforesaid offences. In brief, the facts are that Ghisa Ram son of Ranjit Singh Yadav resident of village Kapriwas, had raised construction of a house on Kapriwas-Palasoli road and had let out some accommodation to some persons. Mool Chand son of Pratap Singh and Bajrang son of Mani Ram were also his tenants. Mool Chand was working in Kay Jay Factory Malpura. During the intervening night of 7/8.6.2004, both Mool Chand and Bajrang were sleeping in front of the house of Ghisa Ram and Ghisa Ram was also sleeping there on another cot. At about 2.00 a.m. Ghisa Ram awakened Mool Chand and told him that somebody had caused gun shot injury to him. Mool Chand and Bajrang called Deva Nand son of Ghisa Ram from his house. Deva Nand arranged car and took Ghisa Ram to Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon for treatment where ASI Daya Nand reached and recorded the statement of Mool Chand, on the basis of which FIR under Section 307/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act was registered. ASI Daya Nand reached the place of occurrence, called for the dog squad, inspected the spot, however, he could not reach any conclusion. Thereafter, ASI Daya Nand enquired about the fitness of Ghisa Ram to which Dr. Seema Ahlawat opined in negative, but handed over copy of the MLR of Ghisa Ram. Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2009 -2- Thereafter, again Investigating Officer returned to the scene of occurrence and took a blood stained khes, piece of arm of cot and converted into parcels. On 8.6.2004, Ghisa Ram injured was shifted from Pushpanjali Hospital Gurgaon to Batra Hospital, New Delhi, but he succumbed to his injuries on 11.6.2004. On 6.1.2005, Madan Lal disclosed to the police that he had come across Harpal Singh accused who had offered him the liquor. Thereafter, they took the drinks together, then Harpal Singh tried to enquire from Madan Lal about the murder of Ghisa Ram, then he himself, on the promise not to leak the same to any body, disclosed that one Jogeshwar had murdered Ghisa Ram at the instance of Nirmla Devi wife of Krishan and Kulwant Singh son of Krishan respectively. Again, on 9.1.2005, Harpal Singh and Kulwant Singh went to the house of Dinesh Kumar and told about the murder of Ghisa Ram at the instance of Nirmla Devi at the hands of Jageshwar. They further confided in him because they found him the friend of Balwant son of Siri Ram resident of village Pataudi, who is the brother-in-law of Ghisa Ram. They requested Dinesh Kumar to get the matter compromised between them and Deva Nand. Dinesh Kumar then went to Kapriwas and informed Chandgi Ram and Deva Nand in this regard. The police recorded his statement and thereafter arrested Harpal Singh, Nirmla Devi and Kulwant on 13.1.2005. On completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the court. Harpal Singh accused died during the pendency of the trial. On commitment, the accused were charged under Sections 302/120-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. The trial resulted into acquittal. I have examined the records of the case. No direct evidence has come forth to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. The case is either based on hear say evidence or extra judicial confession. Hear say evidence recorded Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2009 -3- in this case is not admissible. No reliance could be placed on the extra judicial confession allegedly made before Dinesh Kumar (PW18). The village of Dinesh Kumar (PW18) is 25-30 kms away from the village Kapriwas. The accused were not having any intimate relationship with Dinesh Kumar. What to talk of relationship, they were not on visiting terms with each other. Dinesh Kumar (PW18) has admitted that they were not even familiar to each other even before 1.9.2005. He neither holds any official status nor is a panch, sarpanch or lamberdar of the village so as to have any influence over the local police. He is not in a capacity which may invite the accused to repose confidence in him. No reason has been disclosed by the prosecution as to why the accused could confide in him who had no adequate acquaintance with the accused. Dinesh Kumar did not take them for production before the police. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the testimony of the extra judicial confession. The necessary law for placing reliance over extra judicial confession have been disclosed in case Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 982 wherein their Lordships summed up as under :- “1. Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it is most dangerous to rely upon the same to convict the accused without corroboration. 1999 (4) RCR (Crl.) 51 (SC) relied. 2. Extra judicial confession made by accused to a person who had no influence with Police. Confession could not be relied upon. 2005 (4) RCR (Crl.) 495 (P&H) (DB) relied. 3. Confession made by accused to a person who was only an acquaint (ance) and with whom he has no intimate relation. No explanation as to why he did not take the accused to police station after confession. Confession could not be believed. 4. Normally one could confess before a person in authority or some one close to him so that the said person may be able to render some help and not before the close relation of the deceased who could not possibly render the accused any help. Crl. Revision No. 1122 of 2009 -4- 5. If the extra judicial confession is found to be voluntary and the evidence of the witness before whom the same is made is trustworthy and he had also no axe to grind against the accused then conviction can be based on the extra judicial confession without corroboration. 6. Extra judicial confession was made jointly by all the accused but the same was held to be suspicious improbable and uncorroborated and no reliance was placed thereon 1999(1) RCR (Crl.) 164 (SC) relied.” The prosecution also failed to arrest Jogeshwar, the real culprit as nominated by the police. In any case, he would be tried as and when arrested. The motive on the part of the accused to commit this crime is also not proved. Besides the statement of Dinesh Kumar (PW18), the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Lal Chand (PW4) and Deva Nand (PW13). Lal Chand (PW4) has stated that Ghisa Ram was murdered by Harpal Singh (since deceased). However, his testimony is not worth reliance as he is not an eye witness to the occurrence and has not disclosed the source from where he has given the evidence. To the contrary, Mool Chand (PW12) has stated that on the intervening night of 7/8.6.2004, when he and Bajrang were sleeping by the side of Ghisa Ram, the deceased suffered gun shot injury and he woke up Mool Chand, then how Lal Chand (PW4) could nominate Harpal Singh as the accused. Neither there is an eye witness account nor the circumstantial evidence is of clinching nature which may directly point towards the guilt of the accused as such, it would be difficult to raise finger over the respondents. Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition the same is dismissed. September 15, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge