Crl. Rev. No.1372 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1372 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.02.2011 Sadhu Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which, the present respondents No.2 to 6 were acquitted from the offence under Sections 302, 120-B, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, Hisar. As per the facts in the complaint, the son of the complainant, namely, Ram Dayal, had gone to supervise the arrangement of the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Vidya at Hisar. The dispute arose between Vidya and the accused persons. Ram Dayal supported Vidya Devi in the said dispute and therefore, in the dispute that arose, he received injuries. Ram Dayal was admitted by the complainant in the hospital on the same day i.e on 20.06.1999. He is stated to have remained in the hospital uptil 23.06.1999. He was discharged on 23.06.1999. He suffered pain and was again admitted in the hospital on 29.06.1999. The accused persons stated to have visited the hospital and threatened Ram Dayal. Thereafter, Crl. Rev. No.1372 of 2009 2 on 01.07.1999, Ram Dayal was going towards the Dhani of Vidya Devi on his bicycle when all the accused persons with their common intention encircled Ram Dayal with intention to kill him. It is further stated that the said incident was seen by Balkishan son of Puran Chand and Vinod son of Manphool. Ram Dayal was brought to the home, where he is stated to have died. A complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C was filed. Accordingly, the FIR No.473 under Sections 302, 120-B, 148 and 149 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Hisar on 27.08.1999. The police submitted the cancellation report on 09.09.2000. The matter was sent for reinvestigation. Once again, the cancellation report was submitted on 07.12.2000. However, subsequently, the cancellation report was not accepted and the matter was sent for trial. Charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons vide order dated 06.05.2005 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner examined as many as six witnesses to prove the commission of offence of murder of Ram Dayal by the accused/private respondents. It is a case of eye witness account and it is a settled proposition of law that in such a case, the non-existence of post mortem report is not of much importance because there was no occasion for the appellant to make a false statement against the accused/private respondents. Heard. There is no merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, in as much as, the first incident is stated to have taken place on 20.06.1999. There is no report to the police about the occurrence on 20.06.1999 till 30.06.1999. In between, Ram Dayal is stated to have remained in hospital from 20.06.1999 till 23.06.1999. He is stated to have readmitted on 29.06.1999. In case, Ram Dayal was discharged on Crl. Rev. No.1372 of 2009 3 23.06.1999, it means, he was in a position to make the statement before the police or to file a complaint. No such complaint was filed by him. As per the statement of PW1-Dr. Kuldeep Kumar, he had treated Ram Dayal for his pain in the groin and testicles and chest for the period from 20.06.1999 to 23.06.1999 and from 29.06.1999 to 30.06.1999. There is no medical report with respect to the injury on the testicles of the deceased. As such, the version of the complainant that accused had given danda blows on the testicles of Ram Dayal, is not supported by any medical evidence. No postmortem was conducted. The cause of death could not be substantiated that it was on account of administration of something poisonous to the deceased. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is also surrounded with doubt. They are stated to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. As per them, they saw the accused persons administering poisonous substance to the deceased. It is not understood as to why they did not rush the deceased to the hospital instead of bringing him home. Thereafter, he was cremated without getting the postmortem in spite of the fact that they are stated to have seen him being administered poison. Thus, there is no medical evidence to support the allegations. There is no postmortem to prove the cause of death. There are discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses. Eye witness account, as discussed above, is unreliable. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 28.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet