Criminal Revision No.1839 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1839 of 2001 Date of Decision 28.09.2010 Ajmero Devi ...... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Accused Surjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Gian Chand were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC, for killing Hari Ram, husband of the complainant Ajmero Devi. Ultimately, vide judgment dated 19.04.2001, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala, they were acquitted. The allegations, in nutshell, are that in the intervening night of 10/11.08.1999, the deceased was having liquor with the accused and in the morning of 11.08.1999 at 6:30 a.m., he was thrown in the Tangri river which was flowing adjoining to their fields by the accused persons and when he attempted to come out of water, Surjit Singh accused inflicted a bamboo blow and pushed him back. Ultimatley, his dead body was recovered on 13.08.1999 and the case was registered against all the three Criminal Revision No.1839 of 2001 2 accused. The occurrence allegedly took place on 11.08.1999 at 6/6:30 a.m. and none had seen the accused throwing Hari Ram into the river. On receipt of the information by Bhag Singh and Jarnail Singh, the complainant went to the fields at 6:00 a.m. and came to know that the accused had killed her husband and thrown into the water but no FIR was lodged on 11.08.1999 itself. The case is based on extra-judicial confession, made by the accused Surjit Singh before Ajmero, Bhag Singh and Jarnail Singh, who admittedly was in a drunkard condition on the day of occurrence. Jarnail Singh has not been examined and the statement made by Bhag Singh (PW8) is contradictory to Ajmero (PW7). Bhag Singh states that Ajmero told them that all the three accused had murdered Hari Ram whereas Ajmero does not say so. She has named Surjit Singh only. Though Jarnail Singh and Bhag Singh have stated that they had reached the field after Ajmero but Ajmero does not disclose if Bhag Singh and Jarnail Singh also arrived in the field. Even in the report Ex.PB lodged by her with the police, she has not referred to the arrival of Bhag Singh and Jarnail Singh in the fields or that she had informed them of confession of guilt made by Surjit Singh before her, so such confession made before the complainant and the witnesses could not be placed reliance. Now coming to the other extra-judicial confession, made before Anup Singh (PW10). First of all he did not claim that he did not inform the police or even talked about the confession made by him to anybody including the wife and brothers of the deceased. There is nothing on the record to show that Anup Singh (PW10) produced Surjit Singh accused before the police. No reason has been disclosed for not informing the police Criminal Revision No.1839 of 2001 3 in time. Admittedly, Anup Singh, Sarpanch (PW10) had remained with Bhag Singh and Jarnail Singh when they were searching for Hari Ram from 11.08.1999 till 13.08.1999 when the dead body of Hari Ram was recovered. Neither Anup Singh has stated that he remained with the witnesses during the days the deceased could not be traced, nor the accused could be expected to go to such a person who also connived with the witnesses. The case was registered against the accused after the dead body was recovered. It means that Ajmero or the other witnesses never knew that Surjit Singh had caused the injuries. It also cannot be expected from a drunkard person, who himself was lying in the water channel under the influence of liquor, that he would take his companion to the river and throw him into it and then he would also dare to cause him any injury with the bamboo. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, the same sans any such defect, illegality much less irregularity, resulting into miscarriage of justice. The evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 28.09.2010 mamta-II