Full Judgment
Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 Date of decision: 21.1.2014 Darshan Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH Present: Mr.Navjeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Kuldip Singh, J.
Darshan Singh has filed the present appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., being the son of Zora Singh, complainant, who is stated to have since expired, whereby he has challenged the acquittal of the accused for offence under Sections 302/201/34 IPC by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
On 25.3.2004, Zora Singh had made a statement before the police that he and his brother Lal Singh are married to two real sisters of village Tajpur, Tehsil Raikot.
Zora Singh has four sons namely, Amar Singh, Kaku Singh, Gurmel Singh and Darshan Singh while Lal Singh was issueless.
Previously, Lal Singh had adopted Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -2- Amar Singh son of the complainant as his son but after some time he adopted Darshan Singh and Vir Singh sons of Wazir Singh of village Tajpur.
Nidhan Singh, father of the complainant Zora Singh, had purchased 42 bighas of land.
Nidhan Singh was not happy with Lal Singh having adopted Darshan Singh and Vir Singh as his sons and leaving Amar Singh son of Zora Singh, complainant.
Therefore, Nidhan Singh suffered a civil court decree of land measuring 42 bighas in favour of his son Zora Singh.
Lal Singh filed a civil suit against him in civil court, Jagraon which was being contested by Kaku son of the complainant.
The case was fixed for 25.3.2004 on which date Kaku was to produce some documents regarding the said land in the Court.
On 24.3.2004 Kaku went to the motor of the disputed land to irrigate the land but did not return till morning of 25.3.2004.
Therefore, Zora Singh along with his son Darshan Singh went to the motor and saw that Barseem crop was damaged and blood was lying there.
After search, body of Kaku Singh was found in the well of the motor.
Zora Singh believed that last night his son had been murdered by Darshan Singh, Vir Singh (stated to be adopted sons of Lal Singh).Lal Singh, Jaspreet Singh and Inderpreet Singh in connivance with each other and thereafter thrown the dead body of his son in the well.
After recording the FIR, Jaspreet Singh and Inderpreet Singh, who were relatives of Lal Singh, were declared innocent during enquiry, and remaining three accused, namely, Darshan Singh and Vir Singh sons of Wazir Singh and Lal Singh son Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -3- of Nidhan Singh faced the trial, which resulted in their acquittal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also carefully examined the trial court file.
FiRs.of all, in this case there are three Darshan Singhs.
One Darshan Singh is the present appellant, who is son of Zora Singh (complainant).Second Darshan Singh is the son of Wazir Singh, who was stated to have been adopted by Lal Singh and third Darshan Singh is the son-in-law of Zora Singh and is the witness of the extra judicial confession made by the accused before him.
In this case, there was no eye witness and the prosecution case rested on the circumstantial evidence.
Firstly, on the basis of the confession made by all the accused before Darshan Singh, PW1, who happens to be the son-in-law of Zora Singh, complainant.
Secondly, statement of Roop Singh, PW2 who was the witness of last seen.
The guidelines for interference in the order of acquittal are well established.
In State of UP Versus Gobardhan and otheRs.2013(5) RCR(Criminal) 743, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10.
This Court has laid down sufficient guidelines for interference by the superior court against the order of acquittal.
In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances to interfere and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal.
The appellate court should Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -4- bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence.
Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference.”
.
Yet in another case in Jugendra Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 817, the Apex Court evaluate the parameters laid down for reversing judgment of acquittal to that of conviction by the appellate court by various pronouncements.
It took into consideration the observations made in the following authorities:- “23.
In Girija Prasad (dead) by LRs v.
State of M.P.2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 84: 2007 (4) RAJ683 (2007) 7 SCC625 it has been observed that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has every power to re- appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence as a whole before it.
It is, no doubt, true that there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and that presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court, but that is not the end of the matter.
It is for Appellate Court to keep in view the relevant principles of law to re-appreciate and reweigh as a whole and to come to its own conclusion in accord with the principle of criminal jurisprudence.
24.In the State of Goa Versus Sanjay Thakran, 2007(2) RCR(Criminal) 458: 2007(2) RAJ101: (2007) 3 SCC755 it has been reiterated that the Appellate Court can peruse the evidence and interfere with the order of acquittal only if the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the decision is Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -5- perverse.”
.
A Division Bench of this Court in Neeta Versus Sandeep alias Athanni and otheRs.Crl.Misc.No.A-746-MA of 2012 also examined the point and observed that appellant had failed to indicate that any misreading of evidence on part of trial Judge which may necessitate interference by this Court and has held as under:- “13.
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, MANU/SC/1428/2011: (2012) 1 SCC602 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “7.
A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused.
This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.
8.
The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence.
A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons.
An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction.
Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for.”
.
Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -6- In the guidelines of the Apex Court as laid down above when the present case is examined, it comes out that there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment.
Darshan Singh, PW1 son-in-law of Zora singh, complainant claimed before the police that on 9.4.2004 accused Darshan Singh, Lal Singh, Vir Singh, Jaspreet Singh and Inderpreet Singh came to his village Dhaler Kalan where they confessed before him that they have committed the blunder of having committed the murder of Kaku.
They requested him to get the matter compromised being the common relative of them.
He assured the accused to discuss the matter with the heirs of the deceased.
They left his house on 9.4.2004 with the assurance to come at the bus stand of Lohatbaddi.
Accordingly, he reached at the Bus stand of Lohatbaddi on 10.4.2004 at about 5 p.m.where Darshan Singh, Vir Singh and Lal Singh also came.
In the meanwhile, police of P.S.Raikot arrived in jeep and he produced all the accused before the police which arrested them and prepared their personal search memos etc.Deceased Kaku was none else than the real brother of the wife of Darshan Singh, PW1.
He is son-in-law of Zora Singh, complainant.
Therefore, he is not the common relative of the parties.
Accused persons are unlikely to repose confidence upon him.
The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PW1-Darshan Singh, before whom the accused persons had allegedly suffered extra judicial confession and PW2-Roop Singh, the Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -7- last seen witness, who had seen the accused persons near the place where the dead body of the deceased was found.
In his version, PW1-Darshan Singh has deposed that on the intervening night of 24/25.3.2004, his brother-in-law had been murdered and on 9.4.2004 the accused persons had come to him and they suffered extra judicial confession before him that they had committed the murder of his brother-in-law.
He further deposed that after committing the crime the accused persons requested him to get the matter compromised and, thereafter, he assured the accused that he would produce them before the police and then the accused had left his house.
On the next day, i.e., 10.4.2004, the accused arrived at Bus Stand, Lohatbaddi at about 5.00 PM from where they were arrested by the police.
The trial Court after minutely going through the statement of PW1-Darshan Singh, did not believe the alleged extra judicial confession jointly made by the accused before him while holding that there is no reason as to why after 16 days the accused will go to son- in-law of the complainant (PW1) to make a joint confessional statement.
If they had done so, there was no reason for Darshan Singh PW1 to allow them to go and not hand over them to the police or at least inform the police, particularly when the deceased was the real brother of his wife.
Further, it is also unnatural that the accused would come on the next day at 5 p.m.at Bus Stand of Lohat Batti and would get themselves arrested by the police.
In these Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -8- circumstances, the accused persons did not appear to have any reason or occasion to have approached a witness to make an extra judicial confession.
When the said witness was confronted with his previous statement in order to find out that in his examination-in-chief before the Court he had improved his version by submitting that the accused persons had confessed their involvement one by one, whereas in his previous statement before the police, the said witness had deposed that all the accused had jointly confessed before him.
The case of the prosecution rests wholly on the circumstantial evidence and in the absence of any eye witness to the alleged crime, it could not have been possible for the prosecution to pin point that the accused were responsible for the murder of the deceased.
The statement of PW1-Darshan Singh is a circumstantial evidence and has to be weighed with corroboration so as to bring home the guilt against the accused.
It is well settled that an extra judicial confession in any case is a very weak piece of evidence until and unless it is corroborated by other evidence in order to prove the guilt of the accused.
In these circumstances, the trial Court did not find any truthfulness in the testimony of PW1-Darshan Singh.
Secondly, PW2 Roop Singh, who alleged to have last seen the accused persons near the place where the dead body of the deceased was found, did not support the prosecution version.
Though the said witness had stated that on the intervening night of 24/25.3.2004 he had seen the accused persons armed with their Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -9- respective weapons by coming from their fields at about 1.30 AM, but the said witness has no where deposed that he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons.
According to the prosecution, this witness got recorded his statement on 8.4.2004.
Moreover, the said witness in his cross-examination has categorically stated that he had not seen the accused persons on the intervening night of 24/25.3.2004.
Thus, the said witness has made a contradictory version in his cross-examination.
The trial Court also did not find the testimony of this witness as reliable as no cogent evidence was placed on record by the prosecution in order to justify the delay on the part of this witness for recording his statement at a belated stage.
The net result is that there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the crime.
Zora Singh was having land dispute with his brother Lal Singh which does not mean that Lal Singh with the help of other co-accused, will commit the murder of Kaku.
No scientific evidence was collected from the place of occurrence to connect the accused with the crime.
Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that charges against the accused are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that since the statement of witness of extra judicial confession is not trust- worthy and PW2 Roop Lal, who had stated that on the intervening night of 24/25.3.2004 he had seen the accused persons armed with Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.
Appeal No.D-1043-DB of 2013 -10- their respective weapons near the place where the dead body of the deceased was found, does not support the prosecution evidence, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime.
Therefore, they were rightly acquitted by the trial Court.
We do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the present appeal is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
( Satish Kumar Mittal ) ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge Judge 21.1.2014 Meenu/vkg Kumar Vinay 2014.01.30 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh