IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Appeal No.273-DBA of 1999 Date of decision: 21.01.2008 State of Punjab. -----Appellant. Vs. Amarjit Kaur @ Chhinder & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab for the appellant. ----- Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. The State is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents of the charge under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC. Case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 5/6 February, 1997, Jaggar Singh deceased was sleeping in the verandah with his son Kuldip Singh and daughter Sukhjit Kaur. Two persons with guns came to the house. They woke up Kuldip Singh and handed over the gun to him and then gagged the mouth of Jaggar Singh and dragged him to the other room i.e. Turi Wala Kotha. They strangulated Jaggar Singh, wrapped his Criminal Appeal No.273-DBA of 1999 deadbody in a khes and took the same away on a bicycle. Kuldip Singh tied the arms of Sukhjit Kaur from backside and threatened her not to disclose the occurrence to anyone. On 7.2.1999 at 10-00 A.M., Balwant Singh brother of Jaggar Singh and Natha Singh went to the house of Jaggar Singh in connection with elections, where Sukhjit Kaur narrated this incident to them. Balwant Singh made statement Ex.PD before SI Baldev Singh (PW-7), which led to registration of FIR. According to Balwant Singh, Jaggar Singh was married to the accused Amarjit Kaur 16/17 years prior to the occurrence. Amarjit Kaur had strained relations with Jaggar Singh for the last 8-10 years and was living separately with her son Kuldip Singh. During investigation, it was found that the deadbody of Jaggar Singh had been thrown at railway track and announcement of this fact was made in the Gurudwara. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report and sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination. According to Karnail Kaur (PW-4), mother of the deceased, she had gone to ease herself in the night and she saw Darshan Singh and Sukhmander Singh @ Mander Singh accused going on a cycle followed by Amarjit Kaur. Darshan Singh accused was arrested and he made disclosure-statement leading to recovery of bundles of sticks and the khes. Sukhmander Singh accused was arrested and he suffered disclosure-statement that he had thrown the bicycle in the lake of Thermal Plant, Bathinda, which was got recovered by him by diving into the lake. After completion of investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. 2 Criminal Appeal No.273-DBA of 1999 The prosecution examined Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg as PW-1, Complainant Balwant Singh as PW-2, Sukhjit Kaur as PW-3, Karnail Kaur as PW-4, Balwant Singh as PW-5, Joginder Nath as PW-6 and SI Baldev Singh as PW-7. Dr. Niranjan Lal Garg (PW- 1) who conducted the post-mortem examination, stated that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation, which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. PW-2 Balwant Singh proved the lodging of the report and his version. PW-3 Sukhjit Kaur appeared as eyewitness. PW-4 Karnail Kaur supported the prosecution version. Balwant Singh (PW-5) proved extra judicial confession of Amarjit Kaur. PW-6 Joginder Nath proved extra judicial confession of Sukhmander Singh accused. SI Baldev Singh (PW-7) proved the investigation. The accused denied the prosecution allegations. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court held that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Reasons given by the trial Court, in brief, are as under:- (i) There was delay in lodging the FIR. PW-3 Sukhjit Kaur, the eyewitness, could not be believed as her version was 3 Criminal Appeal No.273-DBA of 1999 disclosed belatedly without any valid explanation. The accused were not named in the FIR; (ii) Sukhjit Kaur did not know Sukhmander Singh and Darshan Singh accused. She identified them for the first time in the Court. No identification parade had been held; (iii) PW-4 Karnail Kaur was also not reliable as she also disclosed her version belatedly. The witness could not see or identify the accused. Her demeanor showed that she could not be relied upon; (iv) Extra judicial confessions proved by PW-5 Balwant Singh and PW-6 Joginder Nath, were not reliable. PW-5 Balwant Singh had good relations with Jaggar Singh and the accused could not inspire confidence in him. There was no occasion to inspire confidence in PW-6 Joginder Nath also as he had never been Sarpanch or Lambardar or Panch; (v) The recovery was also not reliable. PW-6 Joginder Nath stated that Sukhmander Singh dived into the water and recovered the cycle, which was contradicted by the Investigating Officer. His hands were tied when he was in custody and he could not have dived into the lake. Recovery of toy gun and khes was of no consequence in presence of any distinctive marks. 4 Criminal Appeal No.273-DBA of 1999 We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the record. The reasons given by the trial Court are not shown to be illegal or perverse. The view of the trial Court is a possible view. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal, the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. (Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat AIR 1996 SC 2035). In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 21, 2008 ( S. D. ANAND ) ashwani JUDGE 5