Judgment:
CRA-D-117-DB of 2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRA-D-117-DB of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.07.2014 Gurjant Singh @ Bhola ..Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN Present : Mr.Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
***** MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN, J.
Gurjant Singh @ Bhola, brother of deceased Gurmeet Singh, has preferred this appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, to assail judgment dated 09.05.2013 (for short, 'impugned judgment').whereby court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, (for short 'trial Court') has acquitted Ranjit Singh @ Bindri and Baljinder Kaur (respondent Nos.2 and 3, herein) of the offences charged against them.
Though there is a delay of 136 days in filing this appeal and the applicant/appellant has filed application (CRM No.2475 of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant on merit, and gone through the impugned order.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that evidence available on record establishes guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.31 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-117-DB of 2014 (O&M) -2- but the learned trial Court has ignored the evidence and has acquitted the accused on non-existent grounds.
According to the learned counsel, findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perveRs.and contrary to the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
Case of the prosecution, stated in brief, is that Gurmeet Singh @ Meet (wrongly written as Surmit Singh @ Jit in the impugned judgment) (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased').who was married to respondent No.3- Baljinder Kaur, in the evening of 01.02.2011, went to the tubewell with Baldev Singh for irrigating his fields after telling Gurjant Singh @ Bhola (PW1) that he would stay there throughout the night.
At about 08.00 a.m.02.02.2011, afore-said Baldev Singh told the appellant that the deceased had been killed by someone by inflicting injuries with some sharp edged weapon on his forehead, head and the neck and that the dead body of the deceased was lying in a pool of blood on a Co.at his tubewell.
Accompanied by Baldev Singh and his father, complainant went to the spot and found the deceased lying dead there.
He suffered a statement before the Investigating Officer to the aforesaid effect with the addition that the deceased had dispute with his wife Baljinder Kaur @ Binder and her parental family for the last about 4-5 years because she used to go to her parental home and thence to a Baba on every Saturday and Sunday in spite of objection of the deceased.
Even his children were taken away by his father-in-law Jarnail Singh and his mother-in-law, namely, Amarjit Kaur, had told him that they would settle all the disputes with him for all times to come.
On the basis of these circumstances and, as such, he had suspicion that the Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.31 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-117-DB of 2014 (O&M) -3- deceased was killed by Jarnail Singh, Amarjit Kaur, Baljinder Kaur @ Binder and Sukhwant Singh @ Bant.
During investigation, postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted, spot of occurrence was inspected and statements of witnesses were recorded.
It surfaced during investigation that Ranjit Singh @ Bindri (respondent No.1) had illicit relations with Baljinder Kaur @ Binder (respondent No.2) and used to call her on her mobile phone No.97813-34696 from his mobile phone No.97812-93167.
On 02.02.2011, Ranjit Singh @ Bindri (respondent No.1) statedly made a confessional statement before Lal Singh (PW2).On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
Learned trial Court, on hearing the prosecution and the defence and on perusal of the challan, having found a prima facie case charged the accused under Section 302 read with the aid of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, 'IPC').On a plea of not guilty and a claim to be tried having put up on behalf of the accused, prosecution examined, amongst otheRs.complainant Gurjant Singh as PW1, Lal Singh as PW2, Dr.
Harjinder Singh as PW3 and Surjit Singh, Nodal Officer Idea Cellular as PW8.
In their statements, recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'CrPC').the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution but neither put up any defence nor adduced any evidence in their defence.
On hearing learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel, learned trial Court reached a definite conclusion that the prosecution Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.31 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-117-DB of 2014 (O&M) -4- was not able to fix guilt of the accused, much less beyond reasonable doubt, and, as such, acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 09.05.2013.
Gurjant Singh (PW1) reiterated what was stated by him in his statement (Exhibit PA) based whereupon a FiRs.Information Report (FIR) was recorded.
However, he did not say a word about the stated illicit relationship between the two accused.
Further, when cross-examined on behalf of defence, he came out with a plea that he had named members of the parental family of accused Baljinder Kaur @ Binder only by approximation and that may be, the deceased was killed by some other unidentified persons.
Lal Singh (PW2) stated that when he was going to his village on a motorcycle after attending cremation of the deceased, accused Ranjit Singh @ Bindri met him on the way and disclosed that he had committed murder of Gurmeet Singh; he had illicit relations with accused Baljinder Kaur @ Binder for the last about 2 years and had murdered the deceased at her instance; and requested him to produce him before the police.
However, he, in our considered opinion, is a planted witness.
He has admitted that father of the deceased, was his real maternal uncle.
Still, in spite of a confessional statement having been made before him by accused Ranjit Singh @ Bindri, he allowed him to go saying that he would take him to the police on the next day.
As admitted by him in his cross-examination, he is only a labourer; has never contested election of panchayat; has never been a panch, sarpanch or member of block samiti; has never held any post or authority; has been an accused in two criminal cases; has never met Station House Officer, Police Station Nabha; Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.31 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-117-DB of 2014 (O&M) -5- has never visited that police station; none of his relatives was posted in that police station; and has no acquaintance or affiliation with any of the police officials posted at Police Station Nabha.
In view of these circumstances, it is highly improbable that accused Ranjit Singh @ Bindri, with whom this witness does not claim any proximity, would contact him and confess his guilt.
He has stated before the learned trial court that police had obtained his signatures on his statement but no statement of this witness carrying his signatures was found to be available on record.
He also stated that his signatures were obtained on two papers contents whereof are not known to him.
This shows that he is an irresponsible citizen.
Another evidence relied upon by the prosecution to support its case are the call details of the two accused statedly made on mobile phone No.97813-34696 from No.97812-93167.
To prove the call details, prosecution examined Surjit Singh (PW8).However, merely on the basis of the call details inter se illicit relationship of the two accused cannot be inferred or presumed.
Gurmeet Singh (PW12) refused to support the prosecution story.
It is settled proposition of law that a judgment of acquittal cannot be interfered with only because the appellate court comes to a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned trial Court and in a case where, from the evidence brought on record, two views are possible, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred.
However, from the evidence, as discussed above, it transpires that the prosecution has failed to connect the two accused with the murder of the deceased and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as perveRs.or contrary to the evidence brought on Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.31 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRA-D-117-DB of 2014 (O&M) -6- record by the prosecution.
In view of what has been stated and discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
[Satish Kumar Mittal].[Mahavir S.
Chauhan].Judge Judge July 11, 2014 adhikari Virendra singh adhikari 2014.07.31 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh