Crl. A. No. 502-DB of 2010 v. State of Haryana & Anr.

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.2. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.

1. Smt. Ranjita Chauhan, claiming to be the second wife of deceased Om Pal, has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated

12.3.2010, passed by the court of Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, whereby accused (respondent No.2 herein), namely Shakti Singh, has been acquitted of the charge of committing murder of his father. The State of Haryana has also filed appeal against the said judgment along with an application for grant of leave to appeal. Vide separate order passed in the said appeal, while granting leave to appeal, the appeal has been admitted by this Court.

2. As far as appellant Smt. Ranjita Chauhan is concerned, she is Crl. A. No. 502-DB of 2010 -2- not the complainant. The case was registered on the basis of the statement of Brij Pal (PW.14), brother of the deceased. The appellant claims herself to be the victim and asserts her entitlement to file appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., which has been recently amended by Act No. 5 of 2009, with effect from 31.12.2009.

3. The brief facts of the case, as stated by complainant Brij Pal (PW.14) are that his father was having 45 acres of agricultural land, out of which he had given 17 acres of land each to him and his elder brother Om Pal (since deceased) and regarding 10 acres of land, he had executed a Will in favour of his (complainant's) wife Smt. Hem Latha and Smt. Satya Devi wife of Om Pal. Om Pal was having one son (accused) and one daughter. For the last 14-15 years, he was residing in a rented house at Kurukshetra and had developed an orchard in the land of his share, whereas he had given 4 acres of land to his son Shakti Singh (accused) for cultivation purposes, who was also cultivating 5 acres of land, which was willed away to his mother Satya by her father-in-law. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused used to ask his father to give more land to him, as he was having apprehensions that his father wanted to give land to the appellant, who had been kept by him in a rented house at Kurukshetra, due to which there remained dispute between the family. Once, an altercation had also taken place between them, which was subsequently settled amicably. It was alleged that on 27.4.2009, the accused had caused the death of his father Om Pal by giving grievous injuries on his head with a Binda i.e. wooden Crl. A. No. 502-DB of 2010 -3- handle of spade.

4. The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence evidence led by the accused, observed that the complainant (PW.14) and eye witness Satish (PW.15) did not support the case of the prosecution, and it was held that the eye witness account in this case as not sufficient to fix the identity of the accused with the commission of the crime. It was further held by the trial court that in view of the fact that neither the recovery memo (Ex.PK) nor the sketch of danda (Ex.PJ) is signed by the accused, participation of the accused in the occurrence is not proved. Accordingly, the trial court has acquitted the appellant of the charges framed against him. Hence, this appeal has been filed by Smt. Ranjita Chauhan, the alleged second wife of the deceased.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to file appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal. In view of the amended provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C., the victim has also a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. As per the definition of “victim”, as provided in sub-section (wa) of Section 2 of the Cr.P.C., the victim means a person, who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir. Undisputedly, the appellant did not suffer any loss or injury from the act of the accused. She is not the complainant. However, she had appeared as a witness in support of the prosecution case. Crl. A. No. 502-DB of 2010 -4- The appellant claims right to file appeal only on the ground that she is legal heir of the deceased. Undisputedly, the first wife of the deceased, namely Smt. Satya Devi, is alive. She has one son, namely Shakti Singh (accused) and one daughter Ms. Rubal. The appellant claims to have married the deceased in the presence of his first wife, without there being any dissolution of earlier marriage. Therefore, her alleged marriage is void being contrary to Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, she cannot be taken as legal heir of the deceased. The legal heirs of the deceased would be his legally wedded wife, his son (if not convicted for the offence) and daughter. Therefore, in our opinion, appellant is not entitled to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

6. The State of Haryana has already filed appeal, which has been admitted by this Court.

7. In view of the above, the instant appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. However, it will not effect the merits of the appeal, filed by the State of Haryana, which has already been admitted. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 02, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE Refer to Reporter