IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-9110 of 2008 Date of decision : 05-02-2009 Kitabo ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Anshumaan Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) In the present case, criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of FIR No.150 dated 7-7-2007 registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak, under Sections 342/306/511 IPC. The FIR was recorded on the statement of Dalbir Singh, therefore same amount to dying declaration. The FIR has been annexed as Annexure P-2. A perusal of the same show that deceased was employed as Security Guard in Tis Hazari State Bank of India, Delhi. On the date of occurrence, he was to leave along with his brothers to attend the marriage of niece Poonam. At that occasion a quarrel had started between the deceased and his wife. The son Somvir had locked him in a room and after 15-20 minutes asked the deceased to take the tablets which are kept in wheat. Probably these tablets were insecticides. As per chemical examiner report, cause of death is sulphas poisoning. In the present case, charge was framed on 15-9-2007. Application Annexure P-6 u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by one Kitabo, mother of the deceased on 4-12-2007. This application for examining brothers of Crl. Misc. No.M-9110 of 2008 -2- the deceased as Court witnesses have been rejected by the trial Judge on three grounds. Firstly, the occurrence has taken place on 7-7-2007. Report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 8-8-2007. Case was committed on 1-9-2007 and the charges were framed on 15-9-2007. Therefore it was held that there is a delay of 7 months from the occurrence in filing of the application. Secondly, Court held that name of Jasbir Singh, brother is not recorded in the medico legal report. Therefore he cannot be witness to dying declaration. Thirdly, it was held that a crude attempt has been made by applicants to rely upon application submitted to SHO Police Station, Urban Estate, Rohtak and Superintendent Police, Rohtak. These applications do not contain any date or stamp of the receipt. No diary number has been given. It is case under Section 306 IPC. Abetment to suicide is to be proved. Therefore evidence of eye-witness is not required. Whether the statement made by deceased will amount to dying declaration or not require appreciation of evidence. This Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot disturb the discretion exercised by the trial Court. A perusal of the impugned order show that the reasoning given by the trial Judge is not perverse. A restrain has been imposed upon this Court not to susbtitute its opinion with the opinion of the trial Judge. Until the grave error is committed, this Court will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. The discretion has been validly exercised by the trial Judge. Therefore no interference is warranted. Hence present petition is dismissed. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 5-2-2009 JUDGE manju