Full Judgment
Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 Date of Order: 14.01.2014 Devinder Singh ...Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH Present: Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate for the appellant.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
The appellant/complainant is before us, challenging judgment of acquittal, dated 09.05.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar.
The complainant, lodged FIR No.213, dated 20.09.2012, under Sections 304, 109, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Division No.8, Jalandhar, that on 18.08.2012, at about 8.15 P.M., he sent his son Ravinder Singh @ Kaka, aged 20 yeaRs.who works as an electrician to Metro Hospital to fetc.medicine, but the latter did not return.
His phone was switched off and despite attempts to search for his, his son could not be traced.
He was informed by SI Avtar Singh, on 19.08.2012, that the dead body of his son is lying at Kotla Road, Near Ply Board Factory.
The complainant along with his Kumar Naresh N201401.29 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 -2- wife Jaspal Kaur and relatives rushed to the spot and found that the dead body of his son was lying on the road and foam was coming out from his Nos.and mouth.
The complainant alleged that his son has been administered a poisonous substance or an excessive dose of an intoxicant on the night of 18.08.2012, by Parminder Singh @ Bhinda, Gurvinder Singh @ Kaka, Pardeep Singh @ Happy, Vicky @ Chucha and Money (respondents).while they were sitting at Maa Durga Steel Industries and, thereafter, left his son on the road.
On the basis of this statement Inspector Bimal Kant registered an FIR, prepared an inquest report, post mortem was conducted and it was opined that cause of death was required to await receipt of report of the chemical examiner.
The viSr.was sent for chemical examination on 30.08.2012.
A rough site plan was also prepared.
During investigation, one Ranjit Singh recorded a statement on 18.09.2012 that at about 9.00 PM, he was present in his house, Gurvinder Singh, Parminder Singh and Happy came to his house along with Money and Chucha, where they made an extra judicial confession that on 18.08.2012, Kaka, Parminder Singh, Happy and Chucha, Money, Kaka son of Devinder Singh, complainant, were sitting in Maa Durga Steel Industries, when Chucha and Money brought smack.
All of them except Kaka began consuming smack.
After some time, they asked Kaka to take smack.
Kaka also started taking smack.
Kumar Naresh N201401.29 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 -3- After some time Money left the spot, Chucha and Happy brought some more smack from the house of Money and insisted that Kaka take some more smack.
After some time Kaka began foaming from the mouth and died at the spot.
Money directed them on telephone that they should remove the dead body otherwise they will be implicated in a case of murder.
They carried the dead body and threw it on the road so that a vehicle may run over the dead body and death would appear to be accidental.
Kaka's mobile phone was thrown near Guru Nanakpura.
Ranjit Singh stated that after making these statements, the accused promised to come back but did not return.
The police also recorded the statement of one Maninderpal Singh, PW3, that he had seen the accused many times outside the factory and on 18.08.2012, at about 11.00 PM, when he was returning home, he saw Ravinder Singh @ Kaka on a scooter.
Bhinda was sitting on the pillion of the scooter.
Pardeep Singh, Happy, Chucha and Money carried Ravinder Singh @ Kaka (the deceased) from the factory and placed him between the persons seated on the scooter.
He asked them what had happened, they replied that Ravinder Singh @ Kaka had a 'fit' and they were taking him to hospital.
A few days later he read in a newspaper about the death of Ravinder Singh @ Kaka.
After recording the above statements, the police Kumar Naresh N201401.29 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 -4- arrested the accused and upon conclusion of investigation , presented a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The trial court framed charges under Section 304, 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code but as the respondents pleaded their innocence, the prosecution was called upon to lead evidence.
The prosecution examined Ranjit Singh @ Rana as PW1, Davinder Singh, the complainant, as PW2 and Maninder Pal Singh as PW3.
PW1 and PW3, were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case.
The prosecution, thereafter, closed its evidence.
After closure of evidence, the statements of the witnesses were put to the respondents and upon consideration of the evidence on record and taking into consideration that witnesses primarily relied by the prosecution had resiled from their statements recorded before the police, the trial court acquitted the respondents.
Counsel for the appellant submits that charge against the respondents has been duly proved but the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record while acquitting the respondents.
The findings recorded by the trial court are against facts and evidence on record.
It is further submitted that evidence on record proves the ingredients of Sections 304, 109 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The mere fact that two witnesses have resiled from their statements made before the police, is insuffcient to record a judgment of acquittal.
The Kumar Naresh N201401.29 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 -5- statement of the complainant has not been considered by the trial court.
We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and with the able assistance of counsel for the appellant appraised the depositions of PW1-Ranjit Singh @ Rana, PW2-Davinder Singh, the complainant and PW3- Maninder Pal Singh, produced before us at the time of hearing.
The case set up by the prosecution is primarily based upon the statements of PW1-Ranjit Singh @ Rana and PW3-Maninder Pal Singh.
While appearing as witnesses, both Ranjit Singh @ Rana and Maninder Pal Singh have resiled from their statements made before the police and were, therefore, cross- examined by the public prosecutor.
The cross-examination failed to elicit any material fact that could implicate the respondents.
A relevant extract from the statements of PW1-Ranjit Singh @ Rana and PW3-Maninder Pal Singh, read as follows:- “PW-1 on S.A.Statement of Ranjit Singh @ Rana son of S.Mota Singh, aged 49 yeaRs.r/o 27 New Vinay Nagar, Lamba Pind, Jalandhar.
Stated that on 18.9.2012 at 9.00 P.M., I was present in my house, but nobody has come present in my house.
I do not know anything about this case.
I never made statement to the police in this regard.
Accused present in the court never came to me to confess their guilt.
At this stage, learned Addl.
PP for the State requested that the witness is suppressing the truth.
He may be declared hostile and he be Kumar Naresh N given an opportunity to cross-examine him.
2014.01.29 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 -6- Request is genuine and allowed.
XXXXXnn by Sh.
Harnek Singh, Addl.
PP for the State.
Neither this is truth, nor I have stated earlier to the police that Gurbinder Singh @ Kaka, Parminder Singh @ Happy had come to my house to confess their guilt, but when portion A to A1 of mark A was read over and explained to the witness, he denied of making such statement earlier to the police.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed falsely being won over by the accused.
XXXXXnn by Sh.
D.S.Dyal, Adv.Counsel for the accused There is no other Ranjit Singh @ Rana in 27, New Vinay Nagar.
No other accused ever come to me in any other case to confess his guilt till today.
No other accused came to confess his guilt before me the case FIR No.216 dated 29.9.2012, u/s 120-B, 121 IPC and unlawful activity case till today.
RO&AC Sd/- (Sanjay Agnihotri) ASJ/6.4.2012”.
“PW-3 On S.A.Statement of Maninder Pal Singh son of S.Hira Singh, age 48 yeaRs.business, r/o S-139, Industrial Area, Jalandhar.
Stated that on 18.8.2011 at 11.00 P.M.I was present in my house.
I have not visited the area of Kotla Maaa Durga Steel Industry.
I have not seen anybody.
I have nog given any statement regarding the occurrence to the police.
I do not identify the accused.
At this stage, learned Addl.
PP for the State requested that the witness is suppressing the truth.
He may be declared hostile and he be given an opportunity to cross-examine him.
Kumar Naresh N Request is genuine and allowed.
2014.01.29 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 -7- XXXXnn by MRS.Zeba Khalid, Addl.
PP for the State.
Police never got recorded my statement.
Neither this is truth, nor I have stated earlier to the police that on 18.8.2011 at about 11.00 PM I was going to my house and when I reached near Maa Durga Steel Industry, then I observed Gurinder Singh @ Kaka was driving the Eterno scooter and Bhinda was sitting on the read seat of the scooter, Pardeep Singh @ Happy, Chucha and Sunny holding the Ravinder and came out from the factory.
Lights of the factory were switched off.
It is neither a fact, nor I stated to the police that I know all the accused and Ravinder Singh and mother of Ravinder Singh personally and I had acquittance with the relatives of the accused as well as complainant, but when portion A to A1 of mark B was read over and explained to the witness, he denied of making such statement earlier to the police.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed falsely being won over by the accused.
It is also wrong to suggest that today a compromise has been effected between me and accused and due to that I have resiled from my earlier statement given to the accused.”
.
RO&AC Sd/- (Sanjay Agnihotri) ASJ/30.4.2013”.
A perusal of these depositions reveal a complete denial of the statements recorded by the police, thereby leaving no option with the trial court but to acquit the respondents.
The statement made by the complainant is of no help as he is neither an eye witness nor was he aware of the circumstances in which his son passed away.
His deposition is at best hearsay evidence and, therefore, has been rightly discarded by the trial court while recording a judgment of acquittal.
Kumar Naresh N201401.29 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Criminal Appeal No.D-911-DB of 2013 -8- In view of what has been recorded hereinabove, we find no reason to entertain the appeal or to hold that on the basis of the evidence adduced during the trial, that any other conclusion other than the conclusion recorded by the trial court was possible.
Dismissed.
(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE January 14, 2014 (JASPAL SINGH) nt JUDGE Kumar Naresh N201401.29 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh