IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. A-556-MA of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 05.09.2011 Bedo and others .... APPLICANTS Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate, for the applicants. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Smt. Bedo, Parkashi and Beermati, who are sisters of deceased Krishan, have filed this application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 10.5.2011, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby Anil and Santosh (respondents No.2 and 3 herein), nephew and wife, respectively, of the deceased, have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. Both these accused were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, for committing the murder of Krishan, under a conspiracy. In this case, Lakhmi Chand and Ved Parkash, father and elder brother of Krishan (deceased), had already died. Krishan along with his wife Santosh (respondent No.3-accused) and his nephew Anil (respondent No.2- Crl. Misc. No. A-556-MA of 2011 -2- accused) son of Ved Parkash, was residing in the village. On 19.9.2008, Krishan had died and he was cremated in the presence of the villagers. On 14.11.2008, i.e. after about two months of his death, a complaint, written by applicant No.1 Bedo, was submitted by all the three applicants to the police, alleging therein that their brother Krishan was murdered by both the accused by beating him with bamboo sticks and by hanging, as they were having illicit relations and also wanted to embezzle the amount of ` 2 lacs, which was received by Krishan as earnest money under an agreement to sell his land. Prince son of Krishan aged about four years had witnessed the occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, challan was filed and charge was framed against both the accused, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, out of whom PW.1 Bedo, PW.2 Parkashi, PW.3 Beermati (all sisters of the deceased) and PW.6 Prince (minor son of the deceased) are the material witnesses. Satbir Singh Sarpanch of the village, before whom the accused allegedly made extra judicial confession, was also examined as PW.5, but he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police and stated that the accused never came to him and did not tell about murder of Krishan. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. Crl. Misc. No. A-556-MA of 2011 -3- The trial court, after analysing the prosecution evidence, while disbelieving the statements of PW.1 Bedo, PW.2 Parkashi and PW.3 Beermati, as well as the testimony of PW.6 Prince, the child witness in the case, has acquitted both the accused of the charges framed against them. We have heard learned counsel for the applicants, perused the impugned judgment and have also gone through the statements of the relevant witnesses, copies of which have been supplied by learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments. In this case, PW.1 Bedo, PW.2 Parkashi, PW.3 Beermati are the real sisters of deceased Krishan. They have stated that they were told by the villagers that their brother Krishan had been murdered by the accused. PW.6 Prince is the minor son of the deceased, who was aged about four years at the time of the occurrence and he is alleged to have witnessed the occurrence. He has stated that his father was killed by his mother and cousin by giving beating by dandas and by putting Chunni around his neck, the one side of which was pulled by his cousin Anil and the other side by his mother Santosh. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the death in question was a homicidal death. Undisputedly, the deceased was cremated in the village in the presence of the villagers and all the three sisters of the deceased came to the village after three days of the death of their brother Krishan. Their stand is that they were told by the villagers that Krishan was murdered by the accused, but neither in the application submitted to the Crl. Misc. No. A-556-MA of 2011 -4- police, nor in their statements before the court, they named any person of the village, who told them about the said fact. It is pertinent to mention here that in their cross-examination, all these three witnesses have admitted that the wife of their elder brother Ved Parkash had told them that Krishan had died due to consuming liquor and due to illness. In view of this, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the statements of these three witnesses do not prove the case of the prosecution. Regarding PW.6 Prince, the child witness, who was about 4 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence, the trial court observed that it is undisputed position that after the death of his father, the child was taken by his aunt Bedo (PW.1) and at the time of making deposition in the court also, he was residing with her. On a careful and close analysis of the statement of this witness, the trial court has come to the conclusion that he was a tutored witness and no reliance can be placed on his statement. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that while referring to the cross- examination of this child witness, where he has categorically admitted that whatever he had deposed before the court was told to him by his aunts, the trial court has considered and analysed his statement in detail. After coming to the conclusion that the said witness was a tutored witness, the trial court held that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PW.6 Prince, the child witness, and if his evidence is ignored, then there is no evidence with the prosecution to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The trial court has further come to the conclusion that the Crl. Misc. No. A-556-MA of 2011 -5- prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the accused. It has been observed that it has been admitted by PW.1 Bedi in her cross-examination that at the time of the marriage of deceased Krishan and accused Santosh, accused Anil was hardly 10-12 years old. She further admitted that the relation between both the accused is of mother and son. The evidence of disclosure statement of both the accused to the effect that they identified the place of death and cremation, has also been disbelieved by the trial court, because the place of occurrence was already known to the Investigating Officer. After going through the judgment of the trial court and statement of the child witness, who is the only alleged eye witness in the case, we are of the opinion that the trial court has rightly and properly appreciated the testimony of the child witness, in the light of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. After carefully and closely scrutinizing the statement of the child witness, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, the trial court has come to the aforesaid conclusion that the testimony of this witness in is not reliable and trust- worthy, as he was tutored by the complainant. The entire case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of this witness, who has been found to be unreliable by the trial court. Therefore, the view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or an impossible view, which may require interference by this court. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for Crl. Misc. No. A-556-MA of 2011 -6- doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. Thus, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE September 05, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) ndj JUDGE