Crl.Rev.No.115 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.115 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 20 .08.2009 Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dated 2.6.2008 vide which all the private accused- respondents No.2 to 3 have been acquitted of the charges under Section 302, 201 IPC. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable for the reason that the Court has not been able to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. He submits that the overwhelming evidence has been placed on record which goes to prove beyond doubt the offences for which the accused-respondents have been charged with. He states that there was an extra judicial confession having been made by one of the accused, namely, Jagdev Singh, before PW-10 Tarlochan Singh who had appeared before the Court and had made a Crl.Rev.No.115 of 2009 -2- statement before the Court which shows the commission of the offence by the respondent-accused. The motive has been established and that was the greed for usurping huge landed property of more than 70 acres of the deceased and thereafter the act and conduct of the accused whereby they hurriedly cremated the dead body of the deceased in the wee hours of the day and that too without informing the wife of the deceased. He, on this basis, submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be set aside and the accused-respondents deserve to be convicted for the offence for which they have charged with. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant (petitioner herein) Sukhwinder Singh got recorded his statement Ex.PC on 28.10.2005 wherein he alleged that his father's sister Baljit Kaur @ Jito was married with Major Singh about 34 years back. Although many children were born out of the wedlock but unfortunately they died after about 10 or 15 days of their birth and, therefore, she had no issue. Major Singh had two other brothers. The eldest one was Bahadur Singh and the youngest was Janta Singh. Said Janta Singh was residing separately since long but Major Singh and Bahadur Singh lived together. Bahadur Singh had three children; one was a daughter who is married and two sons, namely, Hardip Singh and Jagdev Singh who are also married. Because of the non-survival of the issues out of the wedlock between Major Singh and Baljit Kaur, their relations became strained and, therefore, Baljit Kaur left the house of Major Singh and was residing with the complainant for the last two years. She had filed a case against Major Singh regarding the land and for Crl.Rev.No.115 of 2009 -3- maintenance. On 27.10.2005, the complainant and his aunt Baljit Kaur were present in their house when one Rajpal Singh @ Raj of their village came there and disclosed that on 26.10.2005, he had gone to village Burj Dhilwan to arrange a combine. At about 5.30 P.M., Major Singh and his nephew Hardip Singh were taking liquor while sitting in their fields when the combine was harvesting their paddy crop. Major Singh and Hardip Singh started abusing each other and thereafter Raj Pal Singh went to the village to arrange for some other combine. He stayed at the village. On the next day i.e. 27.10.2005, when he was returning to his village and had reached near village Burj Dhilwan, he came to know that Hadip Singh had murdered his uncle Major Singh. On the basis of said disclosure made by Raj Pal Singh to the complainant, he lodged the present FIR on 28.10.2005 as on 27.10.2005 it was night when this information was given by Raj Pal Singh. Baljit Kaur and the complainant went to village Burj Dhilwan and came to know that Hardip Singh had murdered his uncle Major Singh by strangulating him during the night and on 27.10.2005, Hardip Singh in connivance with his family members had cremated the dead body in the morning at 9.00 A.M. On the basis of the said FIR, the complainant and SI Harvinder Singh went to the S.D.M.Mansa to depute Naib Tehsildar, Baljinderpal Kaur and photographs of the ashes and last remains were taken. After investigation of the case and arrest of the accused, challan was presented in Court. Charge was framed and on conclusion of the prosecution evidence after recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused who chose to lead the evidence and examined DW-1 Sher Singh, the Court proceeded to decide the case and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the Crl.Rev.No.115 of 2009 -4- accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted them of the charges framed against them. In this case, apart from the formal witnesses, the main witness is the complainant who appeared as PW-3. He reiterated the assertion as made by him in the complaint to the police which became the basis for registration of the FIR. This evidence is just a hear-say evidence and his knowledge being based upon the information which was given to him by Raj Pal Singh @ Raj of his village. Not much credence, therefore, can be given to his evidence. The evidence too has no credibility. The evidence of Raj Pal Singh @ Raj would have much importance and, therefore, statement of Raj Pal Singh @ Raj is of primary importance. Raj Pal Singh @ Raj had appeared as PW-4 before the trial Court and stated that he did not know in regard to the manner of death of Major Singh and did not see Hardip Singh accused having a scuffle with Major Singh deceased. He further stated that he did not disclose anything pertaining to death of Major Singh to Sukhwinder Singh and Baljit Singh. He was declared hostile on the request of the Additional P.P. of the State who in his cross-examination by the Additional P.P. Nothing useful could be elicited from him. The case of the prosecution crumbles here. The other pillar of the prosecution case is PW-10 Tarlochan Singh before whom it is alleged that on 27.11.2005 accused Jagdev Singh and Gurjant Singh came to him at Manimajra and accused Jagdev Singh disclosed to him that about one month back, his brother Hardip Singh killed his uncle Major Singh by strangulating him. Thus, the extra judicial confession is by Jagdev Singh alone. The said extra-judicial confession, even if taken to be correct, would not be admissible in evidence qua his co- Crl.Rev.No.115 of 2009 -5- accused, namely, Hardeep Singh and Gurjant Singh. The credibility of his statement has also been shaken in the cross-examinatioin as it has come on record that he is related to Baljit Kaur who is the wife of Major Singh and is her cousin. Another aspect which needs to be looked into at this stage is the difference between Burj Dhilwan and Manimajra, which is 175 Kms. It does not sound to reason that Jagdev Singh would go to the house of Tarlochan Singh to make an extra judicial confession. Nothing has come on record which would suggest that he was either an influential person or known to the police officials. The witness also did not disclose that he ever went to the police to disclose or inform the disclosure made to him by Jagdev Singh. No credence can, therefore, be placed on the statement of Tarlochan Singh PW-10 which has been disbelieved by the trial Court and rightly so. It is an admitted case that the present case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. To prove a case of this nature, the prosecution is required to establish all the incriminating circumstances by proving with clinching evidence and prove the circumstances in such a manner that a clear chain of events is made out which would lead to only one conclusion and that is of guilt of the accused and no other. The evidence which has been led by the prosecution not even remotely connects the accused to the offence alleged to have been committed by them. Statement of PW-3 Sukhwinder Singh-complainant is just a hear-say evidence. Extra Judicial Confession before Tarlochan Singh PW-10 is a weak piece of evidence where it has come on record and has been admitted by him in his cross-examination that he is related to Baljit Kaur who is wife of the deceased Major Singh and that she was not residing with her husband because of the strained relations and, therefore, a conclusion can Crl.Rev.No.115 of 2009 -6- safely be drawn that this witness has been introduced simply to strengthen the case of the prosecution. Last but not the least, the star witness on whose information the complainant had proceeded to lodge the FIR has totally denied any knowledge about the alleged manner of death of Major Singh and he has also denied that Hardip Singh and Major Singh had any scuffle which was made the basis to show that Hardip Singh had strangulated Major Singh and his uncle. It would not be out of way to mention here that cremation was done without conducting any post-mortem examination on the dead body and, therefore, cause of death has not been established. No evidence has been produced by the prosecution to show that there were any strangulation marks on the body of Major Singh. The findings as recorded by the trial Court are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and due consideration thereof and, therefore, do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. August 20, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE Whether referred to Reporters Yes/No