Harcharan Singh v. Hari Chand & Ors.

QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Gaurave Bhaiyya, Advocate, with Mr.K.D.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, for the respondents-accused. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition has been filed by Harcharan Singh (complainant) against the judgment dated 15.7.1993 -2- Criminal Revision No.840 of 1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby accused-respondents Hari Chand, Sarwan Kumar, Tharo Bai and Surjit Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them under Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') by giving them the benefit of doubt. The instant case was registered at the instance of petitioner-complainant Harcharan Singh, with whom deceased Jetha Ram had entered into an agreement for sale of land measuring 48 Kanals 8 Marlas. On 3.6.1991, a sale deed was executed in respect of land measuring 31 Kanals and 16 Marlas by Jetha Ram (deceased) which was attested on the same day. Another sale deed regarding land measuring 16 Kanals 10 Marlas was also scribed, which was to be attested on 4.6.1991. However, as per allegations of the prosecution, on 4.6.1991, Jetha Ram was abducted and murdered by the accused. Jetha Ram was father-in- law of accused-respondent Hari Chand, father of accused- respondent Tharo Bai and maternal grand-father of accused- respondent Sarwan Kumar. The accused had allegedly abducted Jetha Ram from the Tehsil compound City Abohar and thereafter murdered him in the area of Village Gobind Garh in the fields of one Tarlok Singh by strangulation and burnt his dead body. The bones and ashes of the deceased were thrown by the accused into the canal. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented. -3- Criminal Revision No.840 of 1993 The learned trial Judge, after recording evidence and hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. For reaching this opinion, the trial Court was influenced by the fact that the evidence of Ram Chand (P.W.4) and Harcharan Singh (P.W.9) was not worthy of credence and that the ring (Exhibit P.1), allegedly belonging to the deceased, was planted to create circumstantial evidence against the accused. The trial Court also disbelieved the extra-judicial confession of accused-respondent Tharo Bai made before Shamer Singh (P.W.5) on 25.6.1991 i.e after more than 20 days of the occurrence, wherein she confessed that she had murdered her father Jetha Ram by strangulating him. A perusal of the record shows that Shamer Singh (P.W.5) was not related to accused-respondent Tharo Bai nor did he belong to the village of accused Tharo Bai. There was no occasion for accused Tharo Bai to make extra-judicial confession before Shamer Singh after more than twenty days of the occurrence. Extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused-respondent Tharo Bai before Shamer Singh (P.W.5) is highly unnatural and and not plausible. Regarding the recovery of ring (Exhibit P.1), in the original shape, from the ashes of the dead body of Jetha Ram, bearing initial `JR', the trial Court observed that it was quite unnatural. It was the case of the prosecution that Jetha Ram used to wear the ring bearing initial `JR' before his death and he was wearing the ring when his dead body was burnt. The ashes -4- Criminal Revision No.840 of 1993 and remains of the dead body were thrown by the accused in the canal. The accused would not have allowed the ring to remain in the ashes to enable the police to connect them with the commission of the crime. The accused would have either removed the ring before burning the dead body of Jetha Ram or would have thrown the same in the canal. There was no difficulty for the accused to throw the ring along with the ashes and remains of the dead body into the canal in order to destroy the evidence. Still further, had the deceased wearing the ring at the time when the dead body was allegedly burnt by the accused, the ring would have melted down and could not retain the original shape. The initial of Jetha Ram i.e `JR' would have disappeared from the ring due to the presence of the ring in the burning fire. It has also come on record that the ring in question was made of copper. It is quite improbable that a person would get his initials inscribed on a cheap ring made of copper. Under these circumstances, the trial Judge rightly formed the view that the ring (Exhibit P.1) bearing initial of Jetha Ram (deceased) was planted and the extra-judicial confession of Tharo Bai procured through Shamer Singh (P.W.5) in order to create circumstantial evidence was not plausible. Besides all these suspicious circumstances, mentioned above, as per the case of the prosecution Jetha Ram was kidnapped by accused- respondents Hari Chand, Sarwan Kumar and Tharo Bai from the Tehsil Complex, Abohar. However, except Ram Chand (P.W.4) and Harcharan Singh (P.W.9), who are the interested witnesses, -5- Criminal Revision No.840 of 1993 no one else has come forward to depose in Court although it is a matter of common knowledge that the Tehsil Complex being a place of public dealings is overcrowded with persons. The police officials always remain present on duty in the Tehsil Complex to maintain law and order. It is also worth mentioning here that Harcharan Singh (complainant -P.W.9), at the time of lodging report with the police, mentioned that accused-respondents Hari Chand, Sarwan Kumar and Tharo Bai lifted Jetha Ram from the Tehsil Complex, Abohar, and took him to some unknown place. He did not mention that the said accused-respondents kidnapped Jetha Ram in a Jeep. However, while deposing in Court, both Ram Chand (P.W.4) and Harcharan Singh (P.W.9) stated that the accused kidnapped Jetha Ram from the Tehsil Complex in a Jeep. It also casts a serious doubt about the veracity of the statements of Ram Chand (P.W.4) and Harcharan Singh (P.W.9). Significantly, accused-respondent Surjit Singh, who was Chaukidar of the Village and had allegedly issued the fake Death Certificate (Exhibit P.2/A) showing that the death of Jetha Ram had taken place on 30.5.1991, was not charged for this offence. Be that as it may, it further weakens the case of the prosecution. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh and others v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and another, 2002 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 61: 2002 Cri.L.J 3788: 2002 A.I.R (SC) 2907: -6- Criminal Revision No.840 of 1993 2002 (3) Crimes 130, the apex Court observed that High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. It was further observed that High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach a finding different from the trial Court except to prevent miscarriage of justice. The facts noticed above do not warrant conversion of the finding of acquittal, recorded by the trial Court, into one of conviction. For the aforesaid reasons, I uphold the impugned judgment and dismiss the revision petition. January 07, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE