The High Court rejected the complainant's applications for leave to appeal against acquittals and a revision. The court upheld the trial court's conclusion that prosecution evidence was unreliable hearsay, finding no ground for interference.
Applications for leave to appeal against acquittals and the criminal revision were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 15.02.2011
Bhag Singh
.... APPLICANT
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... RESPONDENTS Crl. Misc. No. A-63-MA of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 15.02.2011
Bhag Singh
.... APPLICANT
Versus
Beant Singh alias Monu and another
..... RESPONDENTS
Crl. Revn. No. 1965 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 15.02.2011
Bhag Singh
.... PETITIONER
Versus
Mukhtiar Kaur and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate, for the respondents (in Crl. Revn. No. 1965 of 2008)
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010
-2-
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
This order shall dispose of two applications, i.e. Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 and A-63-MA of 2011, and Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2008, as these cases have been filed challenging the orders, passed in the cases, pertaining to the same occurrence.
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 has been filed by complainant Bhag Singh for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 2.6.2010, passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Faridkot, acquitting respondent No.2 Mukhtiar Kaur of the charge under Section 302 IPC, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 25.7.2008, arising out of the complaint, filed by him.
Crl. Misc. No. A-63-MA of 2011 has been filed by complainant Bhag Singh seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 29.7.2010, passed by the court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridkot, acquitting respondent No.1 Beant Singh alias Monu of the charges framed against him, in Criminal Complaint No. RT 52 of 18.5.2007, filed by him.
Crl. Revision No. 1965 of 2008 has been filed by complainant Bhag Singh against the order dated 2.8.2008, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby respondents No.2 and 3, namely Karnail Singh and ASI Roop Singh, have been discharged, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 25.7.2008, arising out of the complaint, filed by him.
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 -3-
In the present case, it is the case of the complainant (applicant/ petitioner) that his son Jasmat Singh alias Kala (deceased) was working on a harvest combine. Three years prior to the occurrence, he had developed illicit relations with Mukhtiar Kaur (accused), who was his neighbour. When the family of the complainant came to know of it, they engaged Jasmat Singh alias Kala with the daughter of one Gurbachan Singh of village Paliwala, District Ferozepur. On that, accused Mukhtiar Kaur got perturbed and she started threatening the family of the deceased that in case, they marry their son to some other lady, she will kill her. According to the complainant, the matter was taken up before the Panchayat, where Karnail Singh (accused), husband of Mukhtiar Kaur, showed his helplessness. On 19.8.2002, at about 3.00 PM, a few days prior to the marriage of Jasmat Singh alias Kala, when complainant along with his wife, son Jasmat Singh alias Kala and other family members, was sitting in his house, Beant Singh alias Monu (accused), nephew of Mukhtiar Kaur, came to their house to take away Jasmat Singh alias Kala. The complainant restrained his son Jasmat Singh alias Kala from going, but somehow or the other, his son went with Beant Singh alias Monu. When till 7.00 PM, he did not turn up, the complainant sent his son Jora Singh in search of Jasmat Singh alias Kala, who found that Jasmat Singh alias Kala was sitting with three accused, namely Mukhtiar Kaur, her husband Karnail Singh and their nephew Beant Singh alias Monu, in their house. On his asking, the accused told him to go away and they will send Jasmat Singh alias Kala after some time. It is further the case of the complainant that at about 8.30 PM, Major Singh, a
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 -4-
co-villager, came to his house and told that Jasmat Singh alias Kala was lying unconscious near a wall of the house of Mukhtiar Kaur. Thereupon, the complainant and other members rushed to the spot and found that Jasmat Singh was lying in an unconscious condition near the well. They immediately took him to the Hospital, where he was declared dead. The hospital authorities reported the matter to the police and being an un-natural death, the inquest was prepared and post mortem of the deceased was conducted. According to the post mortem report, the deceased died due to poisoning. Before the police, complainant Bhag Singh made statement (Ex.D1), wherein he stated that his son Jasmat Singh alias Kala at his own had gone on the cycle of Sonu to the fields and thereafter, he was found unconscious lying in front of the store of one Harmail Singh. He stated that his son has either consumed poisonous insecticide or some other article and has committed suicide. No body of the village is responsible for the same. In view of this statement, the inquest was prepared and the challan was not submitted against any person.
Later on, after about four and half months, the complainant filed a private complaint against the aforesaid three accused and ASI Roop Singh, Police Station Sadiq on the allegation that he did not conduct the proper investigation in the case. Since one of the accused, namely Beant Singh alias Monu, was juvenile, therefore, his case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.
After the pre-charge evidence, vide order dated 2.8.2008, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, two accused,
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 -5-
namely Karnail Singh and ASI Roop Singh were discharged, while holding that from the statement of complainant recorded by ASI Roop Singh on 20.8.2002, it does not appear that it was recorded lateron and that signatures of the complainant were obtained on blank paper. It was further held that ASI Roop Singh also recorded the statements of Gurdev Singh, Darshan Singh and Inder Singh and even in the Panchayatnama, which was signed by Gurdev Singh, Darshan Singh, Kapoor Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Sham Sunder, it was recorded that the deceased committed suicide. Against the said order, Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2008 has been filed.
Vide judgment dated 29.7.2010, Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridkot, acquitted accused Beant Singh alias Monu, while observing that from the evidence and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that it was only juvenile Beant Singh alias Monu, who was responsible for the death of Jasmat Singh alias Kala. It was further held that the circumstantial evidence proved on record does not complete the chain in entirely and the entire evidence of the prosecution is after though, belated and hear-say, which creates doubt in the mind of the court. Against the said judgment, Criminal Misc. No. A-63-MA of 2011 has been filed.
Against accused Mukhtiar Kaur, the trial court framed charge under Section 302 IPC. In order to prove its case against her, complainant examined Kapoor Singh (PW.1); complainant himself (PW.2); his another son Jora Singh (PW.3); his wife Parkash Kaur (PW.4); Dr. K.K. Aggarwal (PW.5); who proved the post mortem report, supplementary report, report of Chemical Examiner and medical ruqa; H.S. Brar, Record Keeper (PW.6);
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 -6-
and Balkar Singh (PW.7).
In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Mukhtiar Kaur denied all the allegations appearing against her and pleaded false implication in the case. In her defence, she examined Iqbal Singh, retired Inspector (DW.1) and Roop Singh, retired Sub Inspector (DW.2).
Vide judgment dated 2.6.2010, the trial court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, acquitted accused Mukhtiar Kaur, while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has hopelessly failed in its endeavour to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. While acquitting accused Mukhtiar Kaur, trial court recorded the following findings :
(i) That deceased Jasmat Singh alias Kala died an un-natural death due to poisoning.
(ii) That the complainant himself in his statement (Ex.D1), made before the police, had admitted that his son had committed suicide, either by consuming some poisonous insecticide or some other article and no body was responsible for his death.
(iii) That it has been proved by the receipt (Ex.D2) that while receiving the dead body of his son, complainant had made the similar statement. However, on 8.10.2002, i.e. after about two months, he made statement (Ex.D3), wherein he named the accused for the death of his son. On the said statement, the matter was investigated by DW.1 Iqbal Singh, Inspector and DW.2 Roop Singh, Sub Inspector. It was found by them that none of the accused played any role in the death of Jasmat Singh alias Kala
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 -7-
son of the complainant. In this regard, report (Ex.D6) was submitted, duly attested by DSP (D) and verified by SP (D).
(iv) That complainant Bhag Singh (PW.2), in his crossexamination, admitted his signatures on his statement (Ex.D1) and the receipt (Ex.D2) and there was no explanation, given by him, for change in the allegations taken by him. Therefore, it was found that the testimony of PW.2 Bhag Singh complainant was not reliable.
(v) That PW.3 Jora Singh was also confronted with his previous statement (Ex.D4) made before the police. In the said statement and the testimony by this witness in the court, major contradictions were noticed. The statement of PW.4 Parkash Kaur (mother of the deceased) was also found to be not reliable.
On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the version given by the complainant in the complaint appears to be after-thought, belated and hear-say, which is neither cogent nor appears to be truthful. Thus, vide judgment dated 2.6.2010, the trial court has acquitted accused Mukhtiar Kaur of the charge under Section 302 IPC, against which Criminal Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 has been filed by the complainant.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the aforesaid three impugned orders.
In our opinion, the trial court, while dealing with the case of main accused, namely Mukhtiar Kaur, has rightly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution, while coming to the conclusion that the evidence led
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 -8-
by the complainant is not reliable and trust-worthy. The evidence, available on record, regarding the causing of death of deceased by the accused, is only hear-say. None of the witnesses had seen any of the accused administering poison to the deceased. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the view, taken by the trial court, cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. Thus, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal.
So far as Crl. Misc. No. A-63-MA of 2011, filed by the complainant against the acquittal of accused Beant Singh alias Monu, by the court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridkot, is concerned, as per Section 51 (2) (a) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, no appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal made by the Juvenile Justice Board in respect of a juvenile alleged to have committed an offence. However, under Section 52 of the said Act, the High Court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any competent authority or Court of Session has passed an order for
Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 -9-
the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. We have examined the judgment of acquittal, passed by the court of Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Faridkot, and for the aforesaid reasons recorded by the trial court against the main accused, namely Mukhtiar Kaur, which in our opinion, do not require any interference, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment of acquittal.
Regarding the order dated 2.8.2008, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby accused Karnail Singh and ASI Roop Singh were discharged, we are of the opinion that since the version of the complainant against the main accused, namely Mukhtiar Kaur, who was charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC, has been found to be not trust-worthy, there is no illegality in the order of discharge.
In view of the above, both the applications seeking grant of leave to appeal, i.e. Crl. Misc. No. A-1032-MA of 2010 and A-63-MA of 2011, as well as Criminal Revision No. 1965 of 2008, stand dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE
February 15, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere in a judgment of acquittal when the trial court found the version of the complainant unreliable.
Whether special leave to appeal can be granted against an acquittal in a murder case where prosecution evidence consisted of hearsay.
Whether an application for recall of acquittal of a juvenile is maintainable when no appeal lies from the acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and othersExplained¶51
State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhag Singh
State of Punjab
Beant Singh alias Monu
Mukhtiar Kaur
Karnail Singh
ASI Roop Singh
Satish Kumar Mittal
M. Jeyapaul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
