Case: Chiranji Lal Vs. Major Singh and Others

1. This appeal is preferred by one Chiranhi Lal who is none other than the father of the deceased, namely, Chaman Lal on being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 558-DB of 1980 dated 20th July 1982 whereby the High Court acquitted both the respondents by setting aside the judgment of the trial court convicting the respondents under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and Sections 201, 411, I.P.C. and sentencing thin to undergo imprisonment for life for major offence and for various terms of imprisonment for the rest of the offences 2. These two respondents took their trial under three heads on the allegations that on 13-7-79 in the area of Talwandi Sabo in furtherance of their common intention, caused the death of Chaman Lal and that in the course of the same transaction, they caused the evidence of that murder to disappear by throwing the dead body of Chaman Lal into the minor canal with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment and that in the cause of same transaction, they also committed robbery of gold ornaments in the alternative they were in possession of the stolen property. The brief facts of the case which led to the prosecution can be summarised as follows. 3. The deceased Chaman Lal who was about 15 years at the time of the occurrence, was the son of Chiranji Lal, the appellant herein. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that he was a spendthrift. On an earlier occasion, he had left the village taking some jewels from the house. 4. The two respondents who belonged to the same village of the deceased, were the close friends of the deceased. There was yag ceremony in the village on 13-8-79 which went on up to 5 p.m. Chiranji Lal was very busy in that ceremony. These two respondents are stated to have lured Chaman Lal stating that they would get him married to a girl from Rajasthan. According to the prosecution, on that pretext they took away the boy. Chiranji Lal along with Kundan Lal searched the boy at various places but he could not trace the boy. On 24-8-79, Chiranji Lal found gold ornaments belonging to his wife, missing from his house. On the same day, he came to know the dead body of Chaman Lal lying in the area of Lalina. Chiranji Lal and his relations went there and found the dead body. The matter was reported to the village Sarpanch and thereafter a case was registered and the investigation was proceeded with. While it was so, one Talwandi Sabo is stated to have informed the father of the deceased on 2-9-79 that the deceased was found consuming liquor along with two other persons about 18-19 days before the occurrence at about 9-00 p.m. The police arrested both the appellants and recovered some ornaments. The prosecution has also led another piece of evidence that a glass tumbler seized from the scene of occurrence contained the finger prints of both the respondents. It was on the basis of the above evidence, the the prosecution attempted to substantiate the charges levelled against these respondents. The Trial Court accepting the evidence of the prosecution, convicted both the respondents as aforementioned. But on appeal, the High Court rejected the evidence adduced by the prosecution as unworthy of credence for the detailed discussions made and reasons given in its judgment and set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquitted the appellants. 5. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal. But only the father of the victim has approached this Court. The High Court has pointed out the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution against these two respondents, namely, the evidence of P.W. 12 speaking to the fact that these two respondents were found in the company of the deceased consuming liquor, the extra-judicial confession of one of the respondents, namely, Major Singh to P.W. 8 and the recovery of the ornaments and rejected the same as unworthy of acceptance. The reasons given by the High Court for its conclusion are sound and convincing. Hence, we find no ground to take a contrary view to that of the High Court. 6. It may not be out of place to mention here that the cause of death was not given by the medical officer obviously for the reasons the body was highly decomposed. But surprisingly, in the inquest report the cause of death is given as drowning and the body was found in mud-water. From whichever angle the case is looked at and examined, it cannot be said that the prosecution has satisfactorily established its charges against both the respondents.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]5. The State has not preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal. But only the father of the victim has approached this Court. The High Court has pointed out the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution against these two respondents, namely, the evidence of P.W. 12 speaking to the fact that these two respondents were found in the company of the deceased consuming liquor, theconfession of one of the respondents, namely, Major Singh to P.W. 8 and the recovery of the ornaments and rejected the same as unworthy of acceptance. The reasons given by the High Court for its conclusion are sound and convincing. Hence, we find no ground to take a contrary view to that of the HighIt may not be out of place to mention here that the cause of death was not given by the medical officer obviously for the reasons the body was highly decomposed. But surprisingly, in the inquest report the cause of death is given as drowning and the body was found inFrom whichever angle the case is looked at and examined, it cannot be said that the prosecution has satisfactorily established its charges against both the respondents